can get ahead by working hard and making money and money can give you power in america. here in the soviet union, he said, the only way to elevate yourself is by stepping on others. you saw it repeatedly. they couldn't wait to run tell government authorities on each other. basically you could tell who was spying on an american, it wasn't hard to see, you could tell who was spying on the other students, wasn't hard to see. . i was grateful to be from the home of the brave, land of the free, land of the free and home of the brave. and i see things changing and it breaks my heart. now, another thing i observed in the soviet union back in 1973

was went to a daycare facility. it was made very clear that children didn't really belong to parents in the soviet union. they were the property of the government. the parents would be allowed to keep their children so long as they trained them up in the way the government said, but if the government ever had one of these stool pigeons that ran in and reported that parents maybe were teaching children that they should strive to be the greatest they could be and what they wanted to do, for example, that was totally opposite of the government's teaching, and it would be a basis you are teaching them evil things. had a student friend, russian friend who was removed from the camp where i was because somebody told on him that he was being too friendly to me. he never said anything negative

about his country, but we had frank discussions about a free market system compared to a socialist system. and they were very honest, candid discussions. and yet he did nothing wrong but he was removed and he was told if he had contact with me again he would be kicked out of college and go to work in a place that would be very unpleasant. i saw when a government controls people's lives. and i was shocked at daycare and i was so grateful to live in a country where children belong to the parents and the parents cared about seeing that they were raised up in the way they should go, and they may disagree with the government, and that's ok in america. but they could disagree with the

government and they were still not at risk of having their children removed. and now more and more with political correctness setting in in this country, people are told you raise the children the way we say is proper otherwise we'll take them away. and it keeps coming back as hence from what i saw 38 years ago. it's hard to believe this stuff is happening. when i look at the american infrastructure financing authority, i see things down the road that this creates and you can't help but believe that it will end up as the student loan business was. we create a federal entity run by the president's cronies that

will make decisions on who gets lending for infrastructure. you could envision a day just like with student loans, maybe the private lenders still keep lending and that goes for a while, but as we saw with flood insurance, the federal government got into the flood insurance market and said, you know what? these private lenders are not selling it as cheaply as we think they should, so we'll get involved to give them a choice. well, what the private insurance companies found was, they are not allowed to run at a loss for a long period of time. they go out of business. go bankrupt. yet the federal government has no problem with running in the red. so the federal flood program has run in the red for years. doesn't appear there's any hope it will ever get to the black. and naturally the federal government drives all the private insurance companies out of the business because the

federal government can do it cheaper and run in the red. i can envision that happening with the american infrastructure financing authority. mr. speaker, you think about a day when a local government, a state government has no lender that can lend on infrastructure because the federal government started small and got bigger and now nobody lends but the federal government. and once again we create a situation, it's the potential, and if you don't look at the potential consequences of what we do in this body and the unintended consequences that can occur, we do damage to america. if the president had his way, and i feel sure that if he has four more years there's a good chance he will, we'll have an american infrastructure financing authority, and

eventually local governments, state governments, entities will have to come begging to the president or to the new czar of whatever it is and say, please, please could we please have a loan to fix our roads or to build new infrastructure that our people are crying out for? please, we promise we'll be good. we'll do what you tell us. god forbid we should get to a system that way, but we are on the way. we see it happening more and more. we dangle money out to states and local government through grants. you want to keep getting the grants, do what we tell you. founders never intended that. never intended that. bad enough that we set up a system where we order unfunded mandates of state governments --

before the 17th amendment things weren't perfect. they did need fixing. there has got to be way to restore power back to the states that it lost when state legislatures could no longer select the u.s. senators. i'm aware there was some abuses there, but we have got to get a veto power, some leverage back to the states again so the federal government doesn't keep doing the kind of thing that this president throws out in this bill. and of course more and more of the airwaves are being moved toward broadband. so it makes 75 something that tells you a lot where this president wants to go for the future, he has the establishment of the public safety broadband corporation. but not to worry, page 76 points

out this establishes a private, nonprofit corporation to be known as the quote, public safety broadband corporation, unquote. it says, and i'm quoting, which is neither an agency nor establishment of the u.s. government or the district of columbia. but they will control broadband. so anyone that might have broadband coming in, maybe get television, computer, internet, radio through broadband, well, guess who comes into your home or place of business through your broadband? it's -- its control of the new public safety broadband corporation. 1984 there was that identify that looked out into -- eye that looked out from every room, something hanging on the wall. it was big brother watching everything. how comforting to know this

president wants big brother watching us through our computer, watching us through the means of broadband, but if you are worried, well, it says, this will not be. i'm quoting, neither an agency nor establishment of the united states government or the district of columbia. that's great news. so who will be controlling this new public safety broadband corporation? we see that in the next section, a little further down in page 76. the following individuals or their respective designees shall serve as the federal members. these are the people that will control the public safety broadband corporation that this administration wants to impose and inflict upon america, controlling all broadband. well, you have this secretary of commerce, the secretary of

homeland security, the attorney general of the united states, the director of the office of management and budget, well, that's comforting. very comforting. there will be nonfederal members so they don't have just a total monopoly on control. in fact they will be the next section says, nonfederal members on the board. who might they be? well, the secretary of commerce in consultation with the secretary of homeland security and the attorney general shall appoint 11 individuals to serve as nonfederal members of the board. well, isn't that comforting. you got cabinet members appointed by the president, but don't worry, the president won't control all of it. although his appointees appoint the rest of them. and they are going to control the broadband.

i think this is what america can expect when you have the president push forward a bill that for -- until i filed my american jobs act, there was no american jobs act down here in the house and that's where it had to be filed because the constitution requires all revenue raising bills to begin here in the house. they have to originate here. so great news. i mean, boy, if the president has his way, more and more federal control. infrastructure, you need infrastructure, well, isn't that rosy, you come begging to the federal government someday. but it's at page 133 as i'm moving through this bill that you find section 376, federal and state immunity, but it doesn't address federal immunity at all. it doesn't even touch federal

immunity. it in fact says, a state shall not be immune under the 11th amendment of the constitution from a suit brought in a federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this act. well, we don't have the constitutional power to wave sovereignty immunity for the state. this is incredible overreach by the president taking away the sovereign immunity of a state not to be sued. he proposes a bill and says not only am i proposing this bill, but i'm going to stick in a provision, it's here, page 133, that says, states, you can be sued if you don't follow my law, my bill to the tee. well, how could the federal government wave states'

sovereignty immunity? i can tell you, under constitutional law the federal government cannot wave states' sovereign immunity. only a state can wave its off represent -- its sovereign immunity. the federal government cannot have anyone wave its sovereign immunity. sovereign immunity is only waved for the federal government if the federal government decides to wave it. so how can the president stick in a bill that allows states to be sued willy-nilly under this bill? it's in the next provision. a state's receipt of use of federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a state shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity under the 119 amendment to the constitution -- 11th amendment to the constitution or otherwise to a suit brought by an employee

or applicant for employment -- it makes it clear, ok, it recognizes constitutional law. the federal government cannot wave sovereign immunity for a state, but the president says, you know what, if you receive one dime from the federal government for any program, then that is an affirmative waiver of your right not to be sued under some bill that we make up here in my czar capital in washington. well, we also heard about -- we had to go after the millionaires and billionaires. now, as people have been told over and over, c.b.o., congressional budget office, that scores bills, cannot score a speech. unless of course the director gets called to the white house and intimidated and then perhaps they will. but in the meantime, generally

you cannot score a speech. there's got to be a bill. so it doesn't matter what a president says in a speech in this body or as he spends millions and millions and millions of dollars running around the country telling people to pass a bill that for so long did not exist here in the house, what matters is what's in a bill. . so the president says he's going after millionaires and billionaires, but if you look at page 134 and page 135 you find out what the president really thinks constitutes a millionaire or a billionaire. the top of page 135 -- well, bottom page of 134, it's subtitled 28% of limitation on certain deductions and exclusions. well, so who loses deductions?

who is going to get punished for making too much money? how many millions do you have to have before this president wants you punished and taxed extra? what does this president consider to be a millionaire or billionaire, that's not paying their fair share, that should pay for? well, it's in black and white now. the president's bill says it applies to the taxpayers whose adjusted gross income is above $125,000 if you're family -- if you're married filing separately. so under the president's defigures of who is a millionaire and billionaire, who needs to pay their fair share, who needs to pay more, it's defined here in black and white as a married person filing separately that makes more than $125,000.

that's in the president's bill. and if you're married filing jointly, then you get to be exempted unless you make over $250,000 jointly as a couple. well, $250,000 as a couple, $125,000 as an individual, it's still $125,000. so how about if you're single and you're not married? well, good news there. you could have either a $200,000 exemption or a $225,000 exemption if you're single and head of the household. so it's potentially worth $100,000 to get divorced. the government is saying, you know, we'll give you an extra $100,000 -- $75,000 to $100,000

if you just get divorced and live together. now, i don't know who came up with. obviously the president's waving the bill around now that there's one printed, but he's advocating that you're better off financially, we'll reward you financially if you'll just get divorced and live together. now, i'm not sure if that's his effort to placate people that want gay marriage to say, look, you're better off financially to not get married. you have an extra $75,000 or $100,000 exemption if you just stay unmarried. so why would you want to get married? i don't know what his thinking was. i don't know why he would want to punish married people who are working hard and making this kind of money, but sure enough, that's in the president's bill. happy days. and he's had talks before about

eliminating the alternative minimum tax that was never meant to apply to the tens of thousands of people that it does. well, guess what, page 135, subsection little c, b talks about additional amounts. subsection c talks about additional a.m.t. amount. so we are going to add to the a.m.t. i know we said we're going to get rid of it. but actually in his bill when you see what he's thinking, he adds to it. now, the biggest help for independent oil producers is called the deductibility of intangible drilling costs. this is the expenses of an oil company, an independent oil company in producing a well. and it's the costs of doing business. any other manufacture that

produces a product is allowed to deduct the cost of doing business. but this president wants to demonize those things and call them what you're not. he calls them a subsidy. they're not a subsidy. a subsidy under any dictionary's definition is in essence a gift or grant of money. there's no gift or grant of money to the people taking these deductions. they get to deduct the cost of producing oil and gas. and when you find out that over 94% of the oil and gas wells drilled in the tenl united states is produced by not exxon, not shell, not the president's good friends at british petroleum who was so ready to endorse the cap and trade bill, negotiating wind to come out in favor of cap and trade the very day the deepwater horizon platform blew, losing lives, devastating

the gulf. but then at the same time giving the president a chance to punish states like texas, louisiana, alabama, mississippi, who had so many thousands of jobs lost when he declared a moratorium that has cost it this country dearly by rigs having to leave american waters and go to other countries. and does that hurt the big oil companies? no, it means there is oil being produced. so taking out the most important deduction for independent oil companies will devastate them and it doesn't even apply to the major companies he says he's going after. so once again he says he's going after major oil, taking away their subsidies. well, they're not subsidies. they're deductions for business expense. and on the other what he really

does in black and white in the bill, nobody has to take my word for it, he repeals the deductions only applies to oil companies that produces less than 1,000 barrels of oil a day. it doesn't even apply to the majors. the majors don't get that. they're able to do such vast production that they can survive without it. the independent producers can't. and a lot of people don't know, like we do in east texas where during world war ii it was the largest oil field ever discovered in the world, but those mainly wells still being drilled there, a lot of it for natural gas now, independent producers producing less than 1,000 barrels a day. you can't go to a bank and drill an oil or gas well. you can't. the odds are not good enough that it's going to be commercially productive. so what you do, most

independents do, they say, take 18%, 25%, something like that of their own well that they're going to drill and then they will sell working interests in that well and get investors to put up their money because if an independent oil producer supplies all the money for their own wells, they hit three or four dry holes, it's what puts some of them out of business. it's small enough. they spread out the risk because there's certainly risk and so they don't lose everything when it's a dry hole. so what section 435 does is devastate the ability to raise capital through investors investing because it repeals the oil and gas working interests exception to pass activity rules.

they don't get it passed through to them for the expenses that they invest. well, it is any independent oil prodouser can tell folks. i've heard it over and over, you take away people's ability who invests to deduct to what they're paying in, they're not going to pay into that. the odds are too good that, you know, oftentimes the money they get back, if it is a commercial well, just barely pays the amount of expenses you don't pass through the deductibility of what they paid in. then, it's a huge loss to them. so you're not going to have people investing like they do now, and it is tough to raise capital. they'll tell you. well, the president devastates an independent oil company's ability or gas company's ability to raise capital. this bill will devastate america. it's a great example of the

president and senate leadership saying we're going to do this and they do something entirely opposite. those who have ears need to hear and with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on mo

>> the federal government runs out september 30. the house passed a stopgap spending bill that would keep the government operating until mid-november, but the senate voted that down. joining us on the phone is a congressional reporter with "politico." what is the next step for this legislation? >> senator reid scheduled a vote on monday evening for an alternative plan, one at that mirrors the house bill. what it does not have is a corresponding spending cuts that house republicans included in their proposal to those cuts would partially offset the disaster relief, $3.6 billion in disaster relief spending, that the house approved. the reid plan, this alternative

measure, appears destined to fail. mitch mcconnell said on the floor that he does not think he is confident it has the votes to pass. democrats seem to think if they hold this on monday evening, it will pressure enough republicans to cave, given that if thfema funding is drying up next week, and they think that maybe by monday they can get an up senate republicans to break party lines, and that could force the house to accept their proposal. but there is no evidence that is going to happen at this point. >> you mention that fema runs out of disaster money on monday. what happens to the agency? >> i think they will have a hard time spending money for the hard-hit disaster areas gue. if you remember hurricane irene, that a visit to east coast last month, the texas wildfires as well -- the

devastated east coast last month, the texas wild fires as well, they are burning money at a high rate and they are concerned they will not be able to keep up with operations if congress does not come up with a solution. really, what they are arguing over is a pretty small slice of the overall budget pie. this is a plan -- the overall budget spent more than $1 trillion to keep the government operating, the entire federal government operating. what we are looking at here is something barely -- a small fraction of this, given that we are just talking about billions of dollars, $1.6 billion in offsets. the democrats don't want any of those offsets. republicans are insisting, and we are not clear how they are going to resolve that. end, you mentioned the government shutdown. how likely is that? >> i tend to think they will

resolve it just for that reason. this is a pretty small number. this is not the same fight they had in april when they were arguing over the scope of the government, how much to spend. they have already agreed to the top line spending levels as part of the debt ceiling agreement reached back in august. the harder things were already resolved. it is the smaller things they have to worry about. its disaster relief -- if disaster relief is curtailed in any way, members will be under enormous pressure to resolve sse. and the larger impa >> what could this mean for the countries credit rating? >> that is a great question, because s&p, when a downgraded it from a aaa rating, they said that one of the big reasons was the political process, both sides sort of the squabbling over the efforts to pare down

the deficit. this bill won't do anything to bring down the deficit. but what it will do -- you know, it could lead to less confidence in the political process. the bigger spending -- the bigger fight over cutting the deficit and debt, of course, will happen later this fall when the congressional super committee, which is negotiating $1 trillion worth of cuts, will propose something if they can reach the deal. >> the house announced it will not be back for votes until october 3. what happens to the spending bill in the meantime? >> that is the question we are trying to figure out as well. they say that we have the bill, we passed the bill, the senate will just except our bill, everything would be fine. they are trying to put the pressure on senate democrats to accept the house bill.

the house senate -- the table that, but it is not totally dead they can move the measure again. i think that if there is -- the two sides reach an agreement, they would probably have to come back in a session to approve the final plan. it is not at all clear which side is going to give in at this point. >> manu raju with "politico," appreciate the information. >> thank you. >> the democratic-led senate blocked the bill today. it was a near party-line vote. senate republicans refused to let the chamber to vote on a compromise authored by senate majority leader harry reid. it was similar to the house ridge, but lacked the loan program cuts. here is a look at what some of the senate democrats had to say after the vote.

>> the bill we have on the floor is a very reasonable. why do we say is reasonable? it funds the government at levels we agreed upon in july. in addition to that, we of taken the funds that should be in fema and put it in there, without offsets. even though the house has put in on their shelf, a bill be passed

on a bipartisan basis -- what we've done to avert a government shut down and make sure that hundreds of thousands of americans suffering from floods and wildfires americans get the relief that they deserved. it also maintains our position that we should not have to kill to provide disaster relief to people who need it. i am aware of the speeches by my colleagues on the house floor and others -- is it really fair that to fund disaster relief, we take american jobs? we are finding all kinds of things unpaid for around the world, iraq and afghanistan. our bill does that. it is the way government should work. two sides cannot get everything it they what, they meet in the

middle. common ground. that is what we have tried to do. that is what this legislation does that is on the senate floor now. unfortunately, colleagues in the house have taken the opposite approach. when they did not get what they wanted, they moved towards the tea party instead of toward the middle. these are important issues. that is why i'm calling on my colleagues -- senator mcconnell, speaker boehner -- to take the weekend, work with us, cool off, and let us work together to find common ground. i am directly calling on speaker boehner, leader mcconnell, to take any time to meet. the senate will be here next week to make sure we resolve these issues. i hope our house republican colleagues will join with us. i am confident that if we work together, we can find a solution. the solution is there, if people would stop and read our

legislation. is there. it funds and government at the levels we agreed on in july and it gives fema the relief that they need. these americans who are suffering from natural disasters all across the country are counting on us to do just that. we need to find a solution and i am confident we can. all americans want to see the government work together and forge bipartisan compromises. they are counting on us to do this. leader pelosi. >> thank you very much, leader reid, for the invitation to be here today and your great leadership in trying to address this challenge. we have not seen this before, when we come to a place at a time of natural disaster or one party or another in congress says it must be paid for. let me say that i associate myself with all the remarks you have made, and just add that as

you are speaking and singing of the families i've met who have been affected -- i was thinking about the families and wept and affected by these natural disasters. fema it may be running dry of the funds. this is not the time to say we will balance the budget on the backs of those who often affected by natural disasters. you never know where the next one is. we have the fires that have been out of control in taxes, we had joplin, missouri, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes along the east coast. we don't know what is next. i support what you propose in the senate bill. i think it is a good compromise , to support the funding that is in the house bill. on the other side of that -- it

seems to be a very excellent compromise, especially when that pay-for is a job killing pay- for. i promote what you are doing. again, we all stand ready to meet whenever, to come together to find agreement. the american people expect no less, and they deserve much more. with that, i am pleased to yield back. >> thank you very much. we should not play politics with disasters. each one of us have been through it. we have had disasters in our own states. we know what it means. a lot of people are facing the worst experience of their lives. losing their homes, losing their businesses, wondering if they will have a roof over their heads. each and every time that has happened in my service in

congress, we have rallied behind the victims of disasters. we have not said it well, we will go down to the congressional budget office and to accounting to see if we can help fellow americans. we stood behind them, we provided the funds, and we are proud to do it because we are part of the american family. when it comes to our efforts overseas, in iraq and afghanistan for years, the disasters in those two countries were not paid for at all. they were provided for by american taxpayers, and there was no payment made. that is why the strategy of house republicans on this is just wrong. we have got to maintain the tradition keeping this american family intact in the midst of a disaster. if speaker boehner thought he could just send us this bill, which killed good manufacturing jobs, to pay for disasters, i think he ought to take a look of the roll call we just had. only 36 members of the senate supported that position.

seven republicans joined us in moving to table the bill that was sent to us by speaker boehner. that tells me that it is time for us to sit down and work out an agreement which keeps our word to the people of this country and the victims of disasters. what we have tried to put together on the senate side, senator schumer, senator reid, senator murray and myself, is illegitimate, reasonable compromise, funding the -- is a legitimate, reasonable we have goneu -- halfway. that is a true bipartisan effort, i hope we can bring our senate republicans around to defeat the john boehner art and stand with us in a bipartisan fashion on monday -- the boehner approach and stand with us on a bipartisan fashion on monday. >> thank you very much, senator schumer.

senator schumer and i came to congress at the same time. i am pleased to join senator reid, senator dorgan and senator schumer in urging our republican colleagues -- senator reid, senator byrd bourbon, and senator schumer in urging our republican colleagues to reach compromise. we had at debate on the house floor. republicans and democrats rose, particularly some very compelling statement from a republican from pennsylvania and a republican from mississippi, talking about people have been ravaged by floods and tornadoes in particular. there are people ravaged by hurricanes and fire and drought as well. the stories were renting, and the debate was we need to help and we need to help now. we suggested last night that what the house was going to pass would not enjoy majority support in the united states

senate. we were correct. notwithstanding that, we waited for the house to send that bill, knowing it full well it would not enjoy majority support. i want to read two statements made by mr. boehner and mr. cantor within the last 12 days. mr. boehner -- "we know the parties will not agree on everything, but the american people want us to find common ground, and i will be looking for it," said mr. boehner on september 8, 2011, just a few days ago. the same day, mr. cantor, majority leader, centcom "we have to focus on areas of commonality and try to transcended differences."

today, leader reid offered unanimous consent that adopted the agreement we made it over the debt limit and a number of operations, and an agreement that emergencies like natural disasters needed additional headroom. there was an agreement that we would have additional spending if we were faced with a disaster. the house debate, clearly everyone understood that we were faced with the disasters. i would urge our republican friends in the senate and at speaker boehner and majority leader cantor to do exactly what they suggested 12 days ago we all ought to do, seek common ground. in our view, we want a higher level of funding which the administration and fema says is necessary. but because republicans do not agree on that figure, we have come to their figure in leader

reid's proposal and we suggest we moved forward on a number we agreed to to fund government. everybody said yes yesterday on the house floor and senate floor, we do not want to shut down the government. at a time of crisis in our economy, shutting down the government would be a job destroyer. i want to commend senator reid, senator byrd and, as senator schumer for their leadership and urge our republican colleagues on the house side, mr. banner -- mr. boehner, mr. cantor, yes, you said you wanted to reach common ground, this is common ground, let's do it so that the people are confident the government is there when a disaster puts them at risk. i thank the senate for allowing us to join them in this important statement. senator schumer? >> thank you, senators reid and hoyer and speaker pelosi and

senator durbin. 59-6 wasn't close. now is the time to work on a reasonable and fair solution find it disaster relief and avoid an unnecessary and destructive government shutdown. the majority leader has said he is willing to meet with house and senate leadership this weekend. we hope that speaker boehner and senator mcconnell will take him on the offer to negotiate a solution. our position is let's talk over the weekend. their position is, take it or leave it. their approach failed on the senate floor this morning, and it is time for them to change their strategy. we have a fail safe measure that will receive a vote on the senate monday. it is a reasonable bill, a bill that will keep the government funded at levels that house and senate democrats and republicans negotiated as part of the debt ceiling agreement. and in a good faith compromise,

it contains the same exact amount of disaster relief funding that house republicans supported. the last thing we want to do is under-find it -- underfund fema in a year of record disasters, especially after passing a bipartisan bill in the senate to fully fund fema last week. the only difference is that our bill doesn't require the job- killing cuts that the chamber of commerce opposes and that our fragile economy cannot afford right now. we are hopeful that reversing the job cuts in this bill will not result in republicans opposing it on monday night. we trusted the republicans agreeing with democrats that now is not the time to be cutting good paying american jobs, and certainly not as a precondition for helping disaster victims across the country put their lives back together after the

wave of tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes we have experienced in recent months. i met with all kinds of people who suffered, and suffered an suffered throughout upstate new york, and to put a political agenda on their backs as they are struggling to regain their lives is unfair and wrong. a number of republicans have come up to me this morning and said they want to do the right thing and fund disaster relief. many of them are from states that are suffering, and they know that fema will run out of money and those states will be high and dry. now there has been a bipartisan vote to defeat the house bill. i trust that these republicans will join us monday night and do the right thing and provide fema with the resources they need to help disaster victims before they run out of funding. people across the country will be reaching out to those republicans this weekend, particularly people in their states.

-- particularly people in their states to support what we're doing, in a good-faith effort to make sure we are all doing the right thing for our country, but politics aside, help disaster victims, and avoid an unnecessary and harmful government shutdown. >> questions? >> senator reid, have you contacted boehner and mcconnell? >> yes. of course, i made the invitation on the floor, i talked to senator mcconnell on the floor. i had a brief conversation with speaker boehner today. yes. it is pretty simple. it is not as if we are going to have to work our way through the budget deficit reduction stuff again. we did that. is a simple thing. very simple. i cannot understand their logic. we have agreed that their number. -- agreed at their number, on

fema. do they want the government to shut down? do they want fema to close? fema will close. it will go through monday or tuesday if we are fortunate. >> you talk about wanting to take the weekend to cool off, but they talk about the need to get the money out there now to people who desperately need it. why wait? what has changed? >> first of all, government funding goes to the first of the month. fema is in more desperate shape, and that is why we talk about making sure we finish this on monday. i don't think anything has changed. >> next week, it will just have to go to print your -- will we just have to go to the brink here? >> the alternative is the job-

destroying bill in the house that picked up 36 votes today to 36 votes. this is not a close call. >> senator mcconnell said on the floor that he is confident you do not have the votes on this bill. why not just of the vote today, dispose of it, then move on to the actual agreement? >> that is really quite simple. we believe that after that bill passed by -- had no chance of passing at 36 votes -- we believe that people need the opportunity to take a look at this. we have not really unusual allies on this, like the chamber of commerce. we don't usually come here and trumpet the chamber of commerce being on our side. we have republican names, we have republican governors -- gov. christie, governor mcdonnell -- saying don't play games with funding emergencies.

these are desperate people. as many as 50,000 manufacturing jobs -- in addition to that, fema provides jobs also. >> what you do if your bill fails on monday? >> i think that should be a question that speaker boehner and senator mcconnell look at, not as it. we have done our job. listen, a bipartisan bill by ang sdi fema, passed heavy majority, as we see over here. we have shown the world that the bill they passed in that house, by a very narrow margin, was overwhelmingly defeated here. i don't understand how anyone could suggest that anyone is at fault other than the republicans

in the house. i think the weekend of summer thinking about what this agreement -- which it somber thinking about what this agreement would do to get dna -- >> is this an area or you can do offsets? >> no. >> if the republicans have gathered to see whether the -- [unintelligible] >> the president will do that if necessary. i would have to think that the vote on monday, all eyes will be upon that, including the speakers and leader cantor. we know what went on in the house yesterday. they were trolling for votes for may be more than 24 hours to get enough to satisfy the tea party. boy, did they make a bargain.

what a bargain at they made. i do not have the exact figure, but i think it is about $20 billion, 53 of them wrote a letter to the speaker and said, "we are not going to vote for this." the grand bargain they may come to get $110 million. that was their bargain. werewas a gambler -- if i a gambler, and i am not, i would think these are pretty bad odds. ok, thanks, everyone bu. >> are you confident that the house will pass what leader reid has brought out? >> i am. if that is the bill that comes back to the house, as i hope it will -- it would necessitate, in my view, the calling of the house back that we could pass that by unanimous consent, and hopefully the speaker and a cantor would agree.

the reason i read the statements made 12 days ago is that this clearly is common ground. agreement on the number, overall spending, agreement on the house number that was voted up on. the only disagreement would be not having an offset. of course there are eight bills i have here listed that republicans voted for under george bush to meet disasters, which did not have enough said. -- which did not have an offset. the staff tells me that fema has never had an offset. there are the bills that have come up and not fema. in either event, if the senate is willing to go to the house number, and the number for funding has already been agreed upon, that it seems to me that that is indeed the common ground that both speaker boehner and leader cantor talked

about just 12 days ago. thank you. >> is there anything left that can be negotiated over? >> author stephen king is this year's mason award winner, aren't others who have made extraordinary contributions -- to bring in a letter -- honoring authors who have made extraordinary contributions to bring in the literature to the public. see the ceremony at 7:30 eastern on booktv.org. this weekend on "newsmakers," senate republican conference chair lamar alexander is leading his leadership position. two reporters talked to him about what he is stepping down and issues facing congress. kennecott in the morning at --

10:00 in the morning at 6:00 in the evening on c-span. william jennings bryan, one of the best no speakers at this time and one at the first politicians to campaign from the backs of railroad cars and automobiles. he ran for president three times and lost, but he changed political history. he is featured in c-span's series "the contenders." tonight at 8:00 eastern. learned more about the series at our upcoming programs ant c- span.org/thecontenders. >> in my opinion, i think that that balance of academic freedom have just gotten -- been pushed too far. >> naomi schaefer riley suggests that the job-for-like entitlement mentality needs to go. >> there are pressures of nutritional studies who have tenure now. when pressed, somewhat at aup or

professor telling the party line will say, "we need someone with tenure in security studies to talk about immigration," even though it is controversial. >> that and other reasons you will not get a college education you paid for, sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> two top executives from the solyndra solar panel manufacturing company invoked their fifth amendment rights today before the house subcommittee on oversight and investigations. they received $500 million in the guarantees from the energy department, part of the president's 2009 economic stimulus package. hearing is about 1 hour 15 minutes. >> my colleagues, before we begin today, i would like to address the procedures used at this hearing. i call ranking members together

yesterday evening to consult about today's hearing. ranking member degette and i agree on the following process for opening statements and questions. i will recognize myself and the ranking member or five-minute opening statements, then each member of the committee will be able to give a two-minute opening statement. after swearing in the witnesses, the majority and minority will each have 10 minutes each to ask questions of today's witnesses. at this time, it will be allotted among members who wish to ask questions at the discretion of the chair and the ranking member. we will start with five minutes of questions from majority members, five minutes from minority members, then repeat. i would like to thank the ranking member, the distinguished member, for her support, and now i recognize myself for a five-minute opening. ok.

good morning, everybody to reconvene this hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations to examine what solyndra's executives knew about the company's financial condition and how it represented at condition to the department of energy, the white house, and members of this committee. just two years ago, after solyndra received its $535 million loan guarantee, six months after the department of energy restructured the deal, solyndra has laid off over 1000 workers. it filed for bankruptcy and has been rated by the fbi did it only two months ago, c l brian

harrison met with me and looked me in the eye and assured me that everything was just fine, and that the company was on track to be cash flow-positive. mr. harris and told me and other members of the committee that solyndra was continuing to make excellent progress, that it is meeting all of its costs and performance milestones, and that revenues were projected to nearly double in to a 11 -- in 2011. i was hoping mr. harrison would testify today and explain to me and this committee how he could make those representations in late july about solyndra improving prospects when the company was on the path to bankruptcy just 30 days later. it seems clear to me that mr. harriston knew or should have known in july that the company was going to restate its financial projections to reflect increasing market and pricing pressure on its products, resulting in decreased revenue.

when the committee invited mr. harrison and mr. stover to testify at last week's hearing, mr. harris and would appear voluntarily and ask the committee's questions -- and answer the committee's questions. however, the council asked the committee to postpone testimony by one week, claiming that mr. harrison and mr. stover were involved in active negotiations to potentially sell the company, and that an earlier sale might result in a better recovery for the taxpayer at the company's bankruptcy. i agreed to this request, provided that mr. harrison appeared this week and testify. in return for postponing his testimony by one week, i was provided a written assurance by solyndra's council that mr. harrison would answer the committee's questions. unfortunately, we won't get those answers today. mr. harrison and mr. stover's

council informed the committee three days ago that they would decline to answer the committee's questions and would invoke their rights under the fifth amendment to the united states constitution. i respect the witnesses' rights under the fifth amendment, but i want to make it clear today, though, that this subcommittee's investigation will continue. we have asking questions about this deal since february of this year. we will get to the bottom of why this loan was pushed out to a company whose liquidity issues were a major issue to the department of energy staff reviewing the loan back in 2009, at which altman because its bankruptcy. -- and which ultimately cost its bankruptcy. we will also examine how doe concludes the restructuring for the taxpayer for maximum recovery. when documents produced for the committee for theomb doubted it

would prevent a slide for a bankruptcy or better recover from a -- government prevent a solyndra bankruptcy or a better recovery from the government. we also wonder why doe would allow it to be subordinated to taxpayers in violation of the clear leader of the law. what we do not know is whether the solyndra executives here today have something to hide. with all the information they some -- it -- was all the information and they singh added todoe accurate and complete? what did they know about their financial situation and when did they know it? what did doe understand about solyndra's financial situation? and did doe know what they were doing, did it properly monitored solyndra and the taxpayer money being used to prop solyndra op? these are all the questions that i would like to have received

answers from our witnesses today. congress and the american taxpayers have a right to know whether this loan guarantee was rushed out the door before it was ready for prime time, whether the administration bed afterown on a bad tha knowing that the company's dubious commercial prospects, or even worse, whether 535 million taxpayer dollars were wasted on false or incomplete information. we intend to get those answers. that concludes my statement. with that, i recognize the ranking member, ms degette, for opening statement. >> two weeks ago, ranking member waxman and i requested testimony from a solyndra president and ceo brian harrison. i am pleased that we have mr. harrison and his colleague, at mr. stover, for today's hearing.

i respect that this is have a right to invoke constitutional -- rights -- out -- i respect their witnesses have a right to invoke constitutional rights, but i regret that they will not be answering questions. i hope that once the constitutional questions are resolved, and they will be able to return and testify voluntarily. nonetheless, mr. chairman, i am glad that the subcommittee will continue to examine key questions relating to the solyndra loan guarantee. as i noted in my statement at the september 14 a subcommittee hearing, it is critically important that we understand a number of factors. first, whether the bush and obama administrations conducted due diligence on the loan guarantee, whether solyndra made accurate representations to the government, with the administrations sufficiently monitored the financial status of a cylindrical, particularly

as market forces seemed to be against the company, and finally, whether the government make correct decisions about restructuring alone. in addition to our specific concerns around this long, it is also a part of that the subcommittee examine these issues in the broader context of how government should support development of our nation's clean energy technology industry. the united states has an un parallels the history of innovation, and at the beginning of the 21st century, it would be to our long-term economic peril if we saw -- leadership -- if we cede leadership to any other nation in clean energy technology development. ranking member waxman and i have urged you, mr. chairman, to take several additional steps in this investigation. first, we ask that the subcommittee convened hearings to ensure that u.s. policies and incentives are adequate to ensure that u.s. manufacturers

can compete in the global clean energy market. we have already heard testimony in our investigations that china's share of the solar market has jumped from 6% in 2005 to 54% just six years later. we have heard that half of the 10 largest solar panel manufacturers are now based in china. at the same time, just last week, some of the country's business leaders, including the electric anderal xerox, stated that "federal government has a vital role to play in innovation," and warned "if the u.s. fails to create new technologies and jobs, that will mean a deep transformation and revitalization of the energy industry -- we will have lost an opportunity to lead in what is arguably the largest and most pervasive technology sector of

the world." accordingly, review of the solyndra loan guarantee should go hand in hand with a review of the appropriate path our nation can take c to take ceding leadership of the clean energy technology market to china and other countries. mr. waxman and i have asked the chairmen to obtain testimony from representatives of the two private equity firms which were the most significant investors in solyndra. private investors invested twice as much as the government in solyndra. the subcommittee should understand why solyndra attracted so much private capital at representations' the company made to private investors as well as to the government. i am certain that the chairman sees the merits of these requests, mr. chairman, and i look forward to working together on these and other issues as the investigation continues, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, gentle lady. now, the full chairman of energy

and commerce, a distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, is recognized for five minutes. >> in 1963, there was a great train robbery in england. at the time, it might have been the largest highest ever. because of its cleverness, the legend continues. the tape was 2.6 million pounds, about $7.5 million in $1,963. -- in 1963 dollars. now we have our modern-day great train robbery, but we have of iced over half a billion dollars, and possibly willing collaborators and co- conspirators of the u.s. government who rushed out a $535 million loan to solyndra. it is a very sad commentary that we met resistance every step of the way as this subcommittee has tried to seek answers to basic questions overseeing the approval process of this project.

we finally had to resort to a subpoena, and at the outright resistance to getting answers that both of you two witnesses assured us only last week he would provide. let me warn you and other folks involved in this taxpayer ripoff -- we are not done. no, we're not. solyndra was the very first company to receive a loan guarantee fund it with a stimulus dollars. the company was touted in statements by the president, who vice president, secretary of energy as a model for the government's investment in green technology. less than two years later, solyndra has filed for bankruptcy and was raided by the fbi. i understand that our two witnesses today, mr. harrison and mr. stover intended to invoke their rights under the fifth amendment and will not testify. solyndra has left taxpayers holding the bag for $535 million

guarantee, and we still cannot get answers. last week we learned even more troubling facts about the administration's review of the solyndra guarantee. concerns about liquidity and cash flow were ignored. the financial models show that the company would run out of cash by september 2011. which, as it turned out, it precisely did. omb felt pressured to complete its review at a time for a groundbreaking event with the vice president. when solyndra faced default at the end of last year, the administration restructured the guarantee and put taxpayer's behind investors, despite concerns by omb staff that the restructuring would not be a better deal for the government and, frankly, in direct contradiction to the law. these facts clearly show that the committee was right to start asking questions about solyndra when we open up our own investigation seven months ago.

the administration past actions in this case i deeply troubling, and so is their response to our findings. rather than engaging in a guy like other efforts to protect the taxpayer from the risks -- in a dialogue about their efforts to protect the taxpayer from the risks posed by solyndra, they are are going to the press that clean energy programs that republicans supported undermine the basis of our asking tough questions about solyndra. according to "politico," "obama administration officials have spent the last week to digging up stories about republican lawmakers who had previously bet for clean energy spending for their districts." first, let's talk about clean energy. yes, republicans support innovation, and we are uniform in our support of any solution that improves our energy security. we may question whether the federal government is capable of selecting the most promising companies in technology, we have

concerns about the stimulus, when it passed in 2009, and we have concerns now that it failed to deliver the jobs that were promised. this is not a debate about the virtues of clean energy. it is a serious inquiry into reckless use of taxpayer dollars on a company that was known to pose serious risks before a single dime went out the door. i yield back. >> chairman yields back. should cows become a gentle lady from illinois --, is reckoned -- rep and rakowski, gentle lady from illinois, is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am saddened that a company in which both the bush and obama departments of energy and sausage promise has filed for bankruptcy, causing the loss of more than 1000 high-tech jobs. i also seek answers from

solyndra's executives about the possibly misleading or incomplete assessment of the company's financial position, and the cause and circumstances behind the fbi raid on solyndra facilities and executives' homes last month. it is unfortunate that mr. harrison and stover mr. have chosen not to testify it and answer questions today so that our subcommittee might together have answers to questions. however, it is important that as we work to address the solyndra situation that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. last night, exploiting the solyndra case, this house voted to cut the doa loan guarantee program. this is a short-sighted mistakable undermine our ability to compete in the global energy sector. as the demand for energy rises, emerging technologies will need our support to compete with businesses in china whose solar industry was provided with $30 billion in government subsidies

just last year. conceding the green energy race to china would be reckless an irreversible decision. in a "politico" op-ed last week, venture cabalists said that the nascent green energy in a stream needs more than capital to grow. -- the nascent green energy industry needs more than capital to grow. as we move forward with our investigation into solyndra, we should ensure that the loan guarantee program remains a priority for this congress and our country. now i yield back the remainder of my time. >> i thank the gentle lady. chairman america's of the full committee, distinguished gentleman from texas, recognized for an opening statement for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's set the scene. it is a sunny day in northern california. it should be a good day for a solar energy company, especially

a company that has just received a government guarantee a loan over half a billion dollars. the solar energy company that has been paid a visit by the president of the united states himself. a solar energy company that president obama called a true engine of economic growth, touted as a green energy success story, a stimulus success story, and a job-creating success story. as it turns out, that day was not a good day for the company. instead, the company, after taking half a billion dollars of taxpayer money, closed its doors, laid off over 1000 employees, and declared bankruptcy. the next week, the fbi knocked down the doors -- the company's the door to secure its files. the question before the subcommittee today, mr. chairman, is how does a company go from having the president of the united states and visit it to having the fbi, in and confiscate its files? the american people deserve an

answer to the question, mr. chairman. the two gentlemen who sit before the committee to date told us informally and in meetings with the staff that they were ready to answer questions, they have nothing to hide, theat a deal with this committee to delay the hearing with the promise that when they came, they would answer our questions. now they will assert their fifth amendment right and refuse to answer questions because the answers to those questions might be incriminating. however, i am sure that the members of this subcommittee will still ask those questions so at least the american people, mr. chairman, no one questions should be answered. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from telephone, ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman, is recognized for five minutes. >> two weeks ago, ranking member degette and i requested

executives from solyndra appear before our committee, and i am pleased that chairman sterns agreed and invited brian harrison, ceo, and bill stover, cfo, to be before us today. attorneys have indicated that both witnesses will invoke constitutional rights under the fifth amendment. i respect that they have this constitutional prerogative, but i am disappointed they will not answer our questions. was in my office in july, -- when mr. harrison was in my office in july, he said that the future of the solyndra was bright. i would like to know what he told me that in july and filed for bankruptcy one month later. unfortunately, i will not get the answer today. one key question is whether the department of energy made a mistake in investing in solyndra. chairman upton and chairman stearns say they already know

the answer to this question. they said last week that solyndra "was a bad bet from the beginning." smart people thought otherwise. "the wall street journal" had a ranking of the top 10 in venture-backed clean at technology companies. solyndra was no. 1 on that list. some very successful and experienced private venture- capital is invested over $1 billion in solyndra, twice the support of the federal government. they obviously did not share it chairman upton's views. our next step should be to hear from these investors. that is why ranking member degette wrote this week to request a hearing with argonaut private equity and -- solyndra's two largest private investors. we need to put our investigation

into perspective. republicans in congress are now dancing on solyndra's grave, but they seem to have a case of collective amnesia. it was not too long ago they were urging the department of energy to award loans and loan guarantees to companies in their districts. one republican member of our committee, rep blackburn, welcome to the award of $1.6 billion loan to a japanese company in her district. another member, rep bance, said he believes in the subsidies received by it a power company. two other representatives wrote to the speaker this year to support doe's loan guarantee program. even chairman upton pushed for loans in his state. nist is an inherent and one of the loan guarantee program. -- risk is an inherent component

of the loan guarantee program. the alternative is to give up on the important role government can play in supporting development of these technologies. we need to face reality and stop denying science. climate change is real and it is caused by man. in the past year alone, extreme weather has caused record floods and drought and fires that have turned much of our nation into disaster areas. the future will belong to the countries that recognize reality and invest in clean energy. china knows this and invested $30 billion in chinese solar manufacturers last year alone. we need an effective strategy to compete. that is why the ranking member and i wrote to the chairman of yesterday to ask for a hearing. unfortunately, we seem intent on denying the future. republicans last night voted to block funding for clean vehicles and they voted to take

away funding for innovative renewable energy projects. that is not an economic plan for the future. it is a job-destroying strategy that keeps us tied to the fossil fuel past. >> gentleman yields back his time. we are in opening statements. thad allen from nebraska is recognized for to the -- we will minutes. n from nebraskao is recognized for two minutes. >> we want clean jobs, we like clean energy. all of us want jobs to be created in our own districts. some of the district's mentioned by mr. waxman have a very high unemployment rates. when you combine the two, it only makes sense that members would encourage job growth in their own communities. i think it is a tactic that is being used by the white house and now by members of this committee to deflect attention

away from the real issues, and that is whether or not the fundamental question -- was doe and omb and the white house duped by solyndra, or did they ignore information available to them for whatever purposes, whether it was to put a green energy in a better light than it was currently in the markets for press availability, or even more onerous, one of its major shareholders, mr. kaiser, who had 16 contacts with the white house, some of which were during important times of consideration for solyndra's requests? those are all legitimate questions that we need answered, that could have been answered here today. it is disturbing that when the taxpayers have been duped out of

over $500 million, we are not receiving the information on their behalf that could resolve questions and fix the problems of the future. i yield back. >> gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for a two-minute opening statement. >> last night, the republican house passed a bill that would destroy i= = the advanced technology vehicle on program and destroy the renewable energy loan guarantee program and destroyed thousands of jobs. what was the rationale? they used solyndra. is this just a failed company that could not compete when faced with a 42% decline in the price of solar energy? or was wrongdoing involved? we don't know the answer to that. but the republican majority is a recklessly exploiting this one case to expand a political agenda that is clearly aimed at killing the solar, wind, and

renewable industries. it is reckless to toss around allegations of illegality on the part of department of energy officials who agreed to restructure the loan guarantee by putting private mss ahead of the taxpayers in the reimbursement line. i sent mr. upton and mr. sters at timeline that provided a history lesson. the loan guarantee was provided at 8:30 a.m. in this room in the conference between house and senate on what would become the energy policy act of 2005. senator domenici it off with the provision -- authored the provision largely as a way to pay for the nuclear power plants that wall street had no interest in financing. i offered an amendment to strike, but it was opposed by the republican majority and the provision became law. the nuclear industry hailed the law, but soon everybody began

complaining. doe was excoriated for not getting a loan guarantees out the door more quickly. the nuclear industry said that if doe did not allow private mss to jump ahead of taxpayers in the reimbursement line, -- private investors to jump ahead of taxpayers in the reimbursement line, wall street would not give any money -- >> gentlemen's time has expired. >> it was not secret, and had a fall of the right regulatory -- >> the gentleman from pennsylvania -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. on january 2009, the committee unanimously rejected this laundry in three weeks later, the process began again. by august, doe employees warned that the model would run out of cash. what happened next is incredible. there are major factors that suggested strongly that the focus was more on protecting the

money of investors and executives, not taxpayers. it is an air tight steam that comes the bernie madoff scheme. -- that trumps the bernie madoff scheme did the initial public offering ensure a strong financial return by being able to profit from stock sales "the new york times" said that beyond the pomp and pageantry, solyndra was rotting and within weeks of obama's visit, the company canceled plans to offer shares to the public. taxpayers will not be submitted to financing in these loans, but the executives are arranged a contract to put themselves first in january 2011. it appears you knew that the titanic was sinking, and you make sure you got to the lifeboats first. i am very disappointed we will not get answers to this today. of the taxpayers deserve answers, and they deserve to get their money back. >> opening statement, john, and

from -- gentleman from texas, mr. green recognized for two minutes. >> today should be an opportunity for solyndra to clear its name. however, due to witnesses exercising their constitutional right, they will not shed any light on the loan guarantee or the restructuring of the loan. it is their right to do so, but i'm disappointed we will not get the information. like other members of congress, in july, shortly after this issue was raised by the subcommittee, our staff met with executives of solyndra and we were assured that solyndra was solvent and well-positioned to grow. only days later, solyndra filed for bankruptcy. it is clear that they were disingenuous at best. it is a good chance that a similarly misled investors and the federal government throughout the loan guarantee process. what is important to recognize

is that no entity, even the federal government, is immune to fraught. the case should not lead anyone to believe that our country should stop exploring development of alternate energy sources, particularly solar. if a mistake is made and fraud happens, we cannot simply turn and run away. wrongdoing should be vigorously investigated and perpetrators should be punished, but we should continue to explore ways to derive energy from alternative sources. 90% of israeli water is heated with solar power. other countries are doing this, and so should we. if we are not aggressively pursuing these technologies, we will be left behind. if we lose our competitive edge at our world ceases to be the leader in technological innovation, we will be dwarfed by our inability to compete. while i am shocked by the conduct of this company and i welcome the investigations by this subcommittee and the department of justice, the

allegations have been made and maybe in this case cannot be used as a pretext for abolishing the federal programs that have enormous potential. >> for an opening statement, dr. burgess is recognized for two minutes. >> i want to thank the minister appearing today and i want to note that they are here a -- voluntarily -- the witnesses for perring today and i want to know that they are here voluntarily and not by subpoena. i am disappointed that we will not get answers today. you will assert your rights under the fifth amendment. mr. chairman, we've been trying for months to get this information out of the department energy and office of management and budget, and it is a shame that this committee has been stonewalled, it is a shame that this committee headehad to resort to a subpoena in july of this year to get this information, and that passed on a party-line vote. i suspect there are several members on the other side of the dais would like to have the vote back in light of what we now know. what we

i think it was a good thing -- i wish we could have gotten more. mr. markey, in march of 2010, at this table, one of your subcommittee hearings, the assistant secretary of energy told the committee that all of the money for these energy programs was obligated and out the door at the department of energy. that was 15 months ago. now we learn that rapidly approaching the end of the fiscal year, they are trying we should try to corral what they are doing. i wish we would have investigated into some crime scene tape and investigated their building. i hope the secretary will be down here to testify. you owe it to the taxpayers. come to our committee. bring the documents and tell us what you know.

the chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman for michigan -- from michigan. >> like every other member of this committee, i am disappointed. we should get both sides of the story. i believe the witnesses today have much to tell us that is probably in their interests. their behavior is fully within the constitution. like everybody else, i have to support and protect those rights. they were widely given by a great man. having said this, i am hard put to believe there is wrongdoing on the department of energy's loan program office. i believe that fact has been documented over the course of

three years and two administrations, republican and democratic. due diligence was done by the loan program office and by marketing consultants. i know how hard it is to get loans. i have had the support from constituents who had need of this kind of assistance. members of the subcommittee or a short earlier this year that the company was on track to success. there are concerns that we may have been given inaccurate information. i hope we could hear the solyndra story at some point. how many of my colleagues on this committee support renewable energy is clear. many members on both side of the -- size of the aisle submitted letters supported funding projects for their districts. i hope we will not take these

failures of this project to mean that all renewable energy projects are bad investments or that the congress or the government should not establish programs that enable the government to support new technology to keep this company -- this country competitive. i thank you for your time, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to our witnesses. we are pleased that you are here. we are disappointed that you are not going to answer the questions that we have on behalf of our constituents and the american taxpayers who want to know what happened to the money. mr. harrison and mr. stover, it is important that you realize this hearing is not about science or technology. this hearing is about you, the department of energy, in your interaction with the administration. there is the desire to be

accountable. we want to be accountable to the taxpayers. we need to have answers from you. mr. chairman, did mr. harrison plead the fifth when interacting with the white house? did he plead the fifth when he told my colleagues he would triple his output? until this morning, he has had no problem talking about the company. it makes you wonder what you are trying to hide or cover up. did your 1100 former employees know they were going to be laid off on the morning of august 31. did they know there was going to be difficulty with the financial bearings of your company? did they understand that there are plenty of questions yet to be answered? and other parts of this story

that causes concern is what is going to happen with the $783 million you all the creditors that trusted you. i yield back. >> we will move to the republican side. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two dennis. -- for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we respect your fifth amendment rights. we will get to the bottom of this in the future. we want to find out what went on and how this loan guarantee was handled. what was the real reason for the company's failure after the federal government provided support? i would also be interested in hearing about the financial

controls internally or lack thereof. on september 22, former employees were cited as saying they saw existence burning through cash. they also said inventories continue to pile up at the same time they were building a $340 million facility around the corner. i would be interested to know how solyndra spend so much money so quickly. and if the company's management team believe in the financial picture they painted at the same time the company was spiraling toward ruin. i would like to ask the witnesses if they could point to anything that solyndra did that could benefit the american people? unfortunately, the questions would not be answered this morning. i know we will get the answers in due time. it is the least we could do for the taxpayers who have been left

holding the bag on this one. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized for an opening statement. >> despite assurances from the solyndra executives that they would testify before this subcommittee, i am extremely disappointed that the ceo brian harrison and the cfo, bill stover have invoked their rights under the fifth amendment to avoid self-incrimination. taxpayers are owed an explanation as to how they were swindled out of $535 million in loan guarantee money. my constituents deserve to know why this company, whose financial outlook in august of 2009 indicated they would be out of cash in september 2011, the time they declared bankruptcy,

and yet received a hefty loan and a rush to judgment about unproven technology. today, we hear nothing. solyndra put taxpayers on the hook for over $500 billion. these executive sitting before us today have the audacity to tell this subcommittee -- they left thousands of people out of work. solyndra is the subject of a criminal investigation by the fbi. my constituents would like to know the answer to several questions. how did solyndra managed to get this loan given the shape of the financial out-build? what reason -- what context did solyndra have at the white house? how did they obtained the obama administration approval to obtain $75 million through private investment before

taxpayers were paid back? these questions will be answered with nothing but silence, as you can see. this subcommittee deserves better and the american people deserve better. >> the gentleman from colorado is recognized for an opening statement. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. you receive the full faith and credit of the united states. the american people need answers. what was wrong? what could happen done? was information hidden from the department of energy? did the department of energy paint a rosy picture hiding from congress? $500 million was taken from the american people. they will not get it back. this morning, the congress passed a continuing resolution. you manage to do something you congress -- few congresses have.

you manage to kill a program. we will get answers. i yield back. >> we recognize the gentleman from virginia. >> i respect your decision to revoke your fifth amendment rights. the american people deserve answers. it is their money we are talking about. if i had the opportunity to ask questions that would be answered today, i would ask, in light of the fact that the justice department got a search warrant for your records shortly after on flattering e-mails to the obama administration were given to this committee, do you feel you have been unfairly targeted by the obama administration justice department to keep you from testifying here today? do you believe the justice department investigation is a smokescreen by the

administration to shield the administration's gross negligence by giving you and others loan guarantees in the first place? do you believe it is a smokescreen for the administration to support a $75 million in taxpayer money against the clear meaning of the lot? did you or anyone at your direction speak to anyone at the department of energy in an attempt to persuade or educate them that there was a legal theory that would allow subordination of taxpayer loan guaranteed money? did you have knowledge of anyone else speaking to legal counsel at the department of energy in an attempt to educate them that there was a legal theory to allow them such subordination? could you affirmatively say that you have no knowledge of anyone speaking to anyone at the

department of energy in an attempt to persuade or educate them that there is a legal theory that would allow subordination? thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> we have completed our opening statements. we will move to the witnesses. mr. sullivan is recognized for two minutes for an opening statement. >> this is a critical hearing to examine solyndra's representation at the department of energy. mr. harrison, on july 21, you came to my office to meet with me to discuss solyndra's continued success in the global marketplace. a lot can change in five weeks. you lied to me about the financial health of your company. five weeks later your company was bankrupt. what happened?

today, i would like to know how your bankrupt company got $5.35 million in loan guarantees from d.o.e.. i would like to know how your chief financial officers act, mr. stover, duped the obama administration about the health of your company? review know your company would be bankrupt five weeks after your hill this its? as a longtime critic of the solyndra -- hill visits? >> we are complete with our opening statements. we will move to allow witnesses. it is my. mr. stover and mr. harrison will rely on their constitutional right not to testify. this should be personally exercise before the members as

we have done in the past. we have requested mr. harrison appearancever's today. i request that they reconsider their decision to invoke their fifth amendment rights, especially because the american people deserve answers about what happened to $500 million of their money. we think we should -- we think they should answer all questions now. you have made statements that you do not know of any wrongdoing. you are cooperating with the department of justice. if you are not aware of any wrongdoing, how can you plead the fifth amendment? i ask you to reconsider. i am are now going -- i am going to place both of the witnesses under oath.

we have the practice of taking testimony under oath. the you have any objection to being under oath during your testimony gem. >> no. >> the chair also advises you that under the rules of the house and the committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel? do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? >> yes. >> yes. >> will you please identify your counsel for the record? >> mr. walt brown. >> jan miller. >> will you both rise and raise your right hand. i will swear you in.

make sure your microphone is on, if you do not mind. do you both swear that the testimony you are about to give this the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you god. thank you, mr. harrison and thank you, mr. stover. the chairman recognizes himself for questioning of the witnesses. i should be less than two minutes. was every document and piece of information you submitted to the department of energy to the white house office of management and budget accurate, complete to the best of your knowledge? >> mr. chairman, i have tremendous respect for this subcommittee and the oversight role its place. as much as i wish to be able to answer the members' questions, i have been advised that it is

the better course to assert my constitutional rights not to answer questions under the fifth amendment. i would like to insist this committee in the future. on the advice of my attorney, i must respectfully decline to answer any questions put to me. >> mr. stover? >> mr. chairman, on the allies of my attorney, i respectfully declined-- advise of my attorney, i respectfully decline to answer any questions from this committee. >> know when the financial conditions of the company in mid-july, were you aware of mr. harrison coming to congress and painting such a rosy picture of the company? review review all of the information being submitted to members of congress?

review discuss it with mr. mr. harrison? >> on the advice of my counsel, i invoke the privilege afforded under the fifth amendment of the constitution. >> my time is expired. i will go to the gentleman from texas. i am sorry. i think we are going to go five minutes on this side and then five minutes on their side? . >> could i inquire of the chair if the witnesses were given the opportunity to get an opening statement? >> they were not. >> they were not offered an opportunity. >> they are welcome to speak today. >> i would ask unanimous consent for them to be given the

opportunity to make a statement. >> normally, we give witnesses an opportunity. >> it is my opportunity -- my understanding that when you are pleading the fifth, there is no opportunity for an opening statement. >> the way the subcommittee has operated, as you know, for the last number of years is when witnesses appear to take the thick, they generally do not get an opening statement. i would have no objection if either of these witnesses decided to -- >> i think we should give them an opportunity so that we are fair and balanced. >> mr. barton, we are told by their counsel that they did not wish to give an opening statement. that is what we are hearing from their counsel. >> we were also told they would

answer questions. >> it is a fine point. judging from the council's reaction, they do not wish to make an open-- counsel, they do not wish to give an opening statement. do you wish to give an opening statement? >> i wish to ask questions, mr. chairman. >> go ahead. >> i would like to ask mr. harrison if he thinks the american people deserve to know what happened to that money? >> i evoked the privilege afforded to me by the fifth amendment of the constitution. >> i want to ask the same questions of mr. stover. >> i respectfully decline to answer any questions. >> i do not understand what is self incriminating about a yes

or no answer about whether the american people deserve to know what happened to over $500 million of their money. i am not a defense lawyer. i would second like to know what changed between january 2009 when the bush administration and d.o.e. rejected the loan application to march of 2009 when the obama administration reversed course and approved the $500 million loan. mr. harrison, would you like to answer that question? >> i invoke my privilege under the fifth amendment of the constitution of the united states and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> i respectfully decline to answer any questions. >> mr. chairman, i am puzzled by

the assertion of the right of self incrimination. the only thing that has changed is the active of the white house. it is certainly not illegal for the american people to put a new president in the white house. i have time for one more question. is it not true that the former ceo and other investors of solyndra met frequently with officials in the obama white house? >> on the advice of my counsel, i've invoked the privilege afforded to me by the fifth amendment of the constitution of the united states and i respectfully decline to answer any questions. >> i would like mr. stover to answer the question. >> is invoked the privilege afforded by the fifth amendment to the constitution. >> i see nothing incriminating about people going to see folks in the white house. i will say this, mr. chairman.

i hope on a bipartisan basis we get to the bottom of this. i help our staffs look at the constitutionality of invoking a broad privilege when there does not appear to be any reason for these gentlemen not to answer the questions of the subcommittee. >> the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute.

>> the ranking member is recognized for two the -- for five minutes. >> based on the answers you have given to the other members of this committee, mr. harrison, i would like to ask you that you intend to exercise your fifth amendment right not to answer any questions on any subject it to you by this committee today. is that correct? >> yes. >> mr. stover, i will ask you the same question. based on your answers to the other members of this committee, based on the advice of your counsel, you do not intend to answer any questions based on the exercise of your

fifth amendment right. is that correct? >> yes. >> these are important constitutional rights. we are frustrated today because you told a number of us in august that the company was strong, that it was doing well and this was only five weeks before the bankruptcy. we would like to get to the bottom of that. we have the utmost respect for the united states constitution. i will decline to ask you any further questions today. mr. chairman, as i said in my opening statement, i will be hopeful that once the legal issues are cleared up and based upon the advice of counsel, these witnesses will voluntarily come back and answer the questions put to them by both sides of this committee. with that, i will ask the other members on my side if they have any questions or these witnesses at this time.

in that case, we will yield back the first five minutes and reserve our second five minutes. >> i understand you are yielding back your lower three minutes. at this point, we will go to our side and recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for one minute. >> to both witnesses, the soy not asking you are compelling you to be a witness against yourself -- i am not asking you or compelling you to be a witness against to a self. this question is not of a criminal basis or anything else. what is your plan to pay that the taxpayers by the $35 million that you owe them? when will you pay it back? mr. harrison. >> on the advise of counsel, i involke my fifth amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> on the advise of counsel, i involke my fifth amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer questions.

>> i thank you, gentleman. we recognize the gentleman from texas for one minute. >> a question for both of you. a "the new york times" article about this problem said administration officials blamed the problem on the global collapse. there were allegations of a cover-up of their financial position. an aide to a top white house official was met with three times to push for lawns. would you be willing to provide to this committee communications between yourselves and your senior executives with members of the white house, particularly battery jarrett or rahm emanuel or their staff? -- valerie jarrett. >> on the advise of counsel, i

involke my fifth amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> mr. stover, same question. >> on the advise of counsel, i involke my fifth amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what we would like to know is, who was the first in your company to realize that you were not going to be profitable. when he became aware, was this discussed at a board meeting? were doe staff members present? were white house employees or administration appointees present for such board meetings? prior to your bankruptcy filing and your awareness of your financial situation, did you issue bonuses to your senior management, your leadership

team, or your board? was this discussed as an agenda item at a board meeting? >> on the advise of counsel, i involke my fifth amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> mr. stover. >> on the advise of counsel, i involke my fifth amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> yield back. >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> i would like to know what role he played in the subordination and whether not your company or agents of your company came up with the legal theory that allow for subordination? if each of you could answer that, i would appreciated. >> on the advise of counsel, i involke my fifth amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> on the advise of counsel, i

involke my fifth amendment rights and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> we have one minute left on our side. in relation to solyndra's restructuring agreement, did anyone from doe or omb ever discuss with you the issue was a violation of the law? >> on the advice of my counsel, and invoke -- i invoke the privilege provided to me by the fifth amendment of the constitution and respectfully decline to answer questions. >> we recognize the minority for 5 minutes.

mr. waxman is recognized for five minutes. >> we have had other situations with witnesses invoking the fifth amendment. we have seen in line of questioning designed for catchy sound bites rather than creating a clear record. these questions constitute with this badgering -- witness died during this is unseemly -- these questions constitute witnessed by during -- badgering that is unseemly. according to a supreme court ruling, it is considered

prosecutorial misconduct when the government calls witnesses in a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case of inferences are rising from the use of testimonial privileges. a federal appeals case has written records has written that an appeals may arise after a legitimate refusal has become apparent. i want to take this moment to assert the fact that i think it is unseemly and inappropriate for members to be asking questions that we know you will not answer. you do have a privilege under the u.s. constitution not to give us testimony. should you answer any questions, you may have waived your right. it seems to me when members ask questions like when are

you going to pay back the money, when did you tell the board about it, when a subordinate the loans from others -- to me, that is an improper line of questioning. they are sound bites. they're not attempts to get real answers. our committee is better than this. this is an important inquiry. we must find out what happened to ensure that similar companies cannot suffer the same fate. let's not put a desire for the attention of both our duty conduct -- to conduct their investigation into important situations. >> may i ask a question? >> i will not take the fifth amendment. >> i was told you appeared on the "today" show and said the committee was allowed to ask

questions and you wanted to ask questions. >> i did not appear on the "today" show. i came to this hearing directly from home. i told the press and everyone else who has asked me that i requested these witnesses be brought to our committee because i do have questions i would like to ask. i think we are entitled to the answer to the questions. to getink we're entitled answers to questions. there are other ways to elicit the information. it is my time. i am willing to work with the chairman of the committee and the members to pursue other ways to get the information. if they have asserted the fifth amendment, there is nothing else we can do. to badger them with questions that are sound bites for the press, it does not strike me as a fair or balanced way for the committee to conduct its business.

>> i would point out to the ranking member that this format was agreed to by your side. >> if the gentleman will yield. just because i agreed to the format does not mean i agreed to the witnesses being badgered. >> let me move to close. mr. harrison, will you invoke your fifth amendment rights in response to all questions today? >> yes. >> thing you are excused from the witness table at this time. i will advise the remains subject to the process of the committee. we may recall you. you may leave. mr. stover, are you refusing to

answer questions on the basis of the protections afforded to you under the fifth amendment of the constitution? >> yes. press step down? >> are you refusing to answer the question on the basis of the protections afforded to you under the fifth amendment of the u.s. constitution? >> yes. >> you are excused from the witness table. you do remains subject to the process of the committee. we may recall you. i ask unanimous consent to enter documents and the supplemental memo. no objection. i thank gang members for coming. i am sorry the solyndra executives were not able to

provide answers. nonetheless, the committee investigation will go forward. we sent three to document requests this week. one was to the department of energy seeking their communications with the white house. the second was to solyndra investors. we continue to get documents from the department of energy and the white house about their involvement in the guarantee. we will get to the bottom of what the administration understood about solyndra's financial position and why they continued to believe it was a good bet for five and $35 million in taxpayers' money even though doe and omb staff raised concerns during reviews about the same things that resulted in their bankruptcy to the years later. we're also trying to understand the political and time pressures that may have pushed this loan out the door before it was ready for prime time. despite their inability to answer questions today, we will determine whether cylinder played any part in the

government's failure to accurately assess the risk of this deal presented to the government and taxpayers. >> mr. chairman, the chairman has stated about the continuing document requests that are outstanding. i am wondering if the chairman has reviewed the request that mr. waxman and i have made about having general hearings about our policies and incentives about whether u.s. manufacturers can compete in the global clean energy market. also, the request we have made to obtain the testimony of the representatives of the two private equity companies that invested in solyndra so that we can get a more clear picture from that angle. " we're taking both suggestions under advisement. i think they're both good suggestions. with that, the hearing is now adjourned.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> william jennings bryant was one of the best known speakers of his time in the first politician to campaign from the backs of railroad trains and automobiles. he ran for president three times and lost, but he changed political history. he is one of 14 men featured in the new series, "the contenders." that is tonight at 8:00 eastern. learn more at c- span.org/contenders. >> you do not play politics at a time of national crisis. you do not play politics with the national economy.

you never play politics with people's jobs. >> with the house of commons in recess, annual party conferences are under way in the u.k. watch the keynote this sunday. conferences with the prime minister and minority leader. >> earlier, the senate voted to reject a short-term bill passed by the house containing disaster relief funding. shortly before the outcome of that vote, house speaker john boehner and the majority leader spoke about the bill along with two colleagues who talked about why the aid is needed in their district. this is about 10 minutes.

>> there are thousands of families suffering as a result of floods and hurricanes. the disaster funding for fema is likely to run out as soon as monday. last night, the house passed a common-sense measure to keep the government open and provide immediate disaster relief to refill the fema coffers. we passed a responsible bill. it is time for the senate to move to pass the bill. last night, we passed what became a difficult issue for one reason. this wbill. together in a bipartisan way with house and senate leaders. just because someone decided to change their mind and walk away from an understanding about how we would proceed, that does not make it right.

the house upheld its end of the understanding for a clean c.r. with this fema language attached to it. it is the most responsible thing to do. any delay that occurs because of inaction in the senate will only imperil needed disaster relief for these thousands of families across our country. >> as the speaker indicated, there are people suffering in a big way right now. they need to know that fema and the disaster relief money is will be there for them. we're told that fema will run dry. the disaster relief fund will have no money by next week. the house acted. the president made his request for the disaster relief fund.

we doubled that request and did it in a responsible manner. we sent it over to the senate. harry reid now says he will not take the bill up. harry reid is arguing with himself. this is why people do not like washington. we have got the money in the bill. it is there in a responsible manner. let's get the money to the people that need it. harry reid is now talking about perhaps bringing up the clean c.r. without disaster relief funding. if that happens, fema will run out of money. it will be on harry reid's shoulders because he will not act. the bill is in front of him. the senate should take the bill of and get people the relief that they need. you will hear from tiv congressman from pennsylvania whose districts have been hard hit with people suffering who need the money. >> i just came back from what was the worst and is the worst

flood in the history of northeastern pennsylvania. i toured with my neighbors and friends as they took their life's possessions and dumped them on the sidewalk. i stood on the front porch and watched grown men cry. i was in the kitchen of a woman who told me that in the last six months, she lost her husband, her son, and not everything she owns. when disaster hits anywhere, the united states is the first to come to help. now disaster has struck americans. on sunday night, we stopped helping these people -- we stop helping these people. please help. they cannot wait five days. as we speak right now in this

beautiful building, the people back home are running generators. they are struggling to put their lives back together. we need help and we need it now. >> i am congressman from the 10th congressional district in pennsylvania. for the last few weeks, my staff and i have been in the mud and hip-high water observing in helping people to get their lives in order. it is unconscionable what mr. reid is attempting to do, playing politics at a time when people in our districts and others have nothing. i had an 8-year-old little girl say to me that she did not have her bed anymore and she and her

sister did not have the bedroom to sleep in any more because the flood destroyed their house. i had to try to calm down children who cannot get into their houses. they were sitting on the tops of cars and trucks because of the water. they were crying and wondering what would happen to them. i was in the flood when i was younger. i know the devastation. i have had 50-year-old man looked me in the eye crying because they do not have anywhere to put their families. business owners say their businesses and houses have been completely wiped out. senior citizens that we had to get their medications to them by boat. federal government has a responsibility to protect citizens from terrorist and national is it -- natural disasters. the most important thing now is getting money to the states and

local areas so that these people can get a hand up. they do not want a handout. they want a level playing field with their own tax dollars. the money is sitting there. this is not about republican- democrat. these are about americans, people that i live with. these are people i see on a daily basis. it is our responsibility. i made the promise. we will follow through with that promise. there is no reason why the senate should withhold -- hold up introducing the bill. it is a good bill. the money is there. we need to get the money to the people today. i am going to go back and continue to tell my people what is going on in washington. i will tell them to pay attention. they are. we have an obligation. we need to fulfil it right now.

thank you. >> you voted against this on wednesday saying there was not enough disaster relief. you said he supported the senate version for the disaster relief. yet he voted for it last night. there is no increase in the debt relief. assertions have you gotten the will get these funds? >> when i came back from my district, i promised the people i would get them as much help as i could. i tried and did everything i can. i did speak with speaker boehner and leader cantor about the problems and how we need to get help. when it comes down to the choice of shutting our government down and cutting off the funding, both of them assured me that the folks back home in northeastern

pennsylvania will get the assistance that they need. we will not let them down. they will have what they need to put their lives together. to think that any time, we would choose to stop any help to them is something i would not believe could happen in america. >> are you and harry reid going to try to work this out? are we just going to see brinkmanship? >> i had a conversation with the senate majority leader before i came down. there was not much progress made. >> are you sending your members home after the vote? >> i do not deal with the schedule. the majority leader does. >> the intention is to complete the act and finish the business of the day. that is correct. there is no brinksmanship. harry reid is holding a bill up with full funding of what is needed for no reason but

politics. this is why the people do not have respect for this institution and town. you have heard the stories. people need the money. the money is in the bill. the emergency disaster request from the president is funded and in some -- then some times two. let's get on with it and get the people their money. >> he spoke about a bipartisan agreement. >> the house has a bipartisan compromise with the fingerprints of his office and appropriators on both sides of the capital. it is a bipartisan bill that we sent over there. is a reasonable, responsible approach to keeping our government funded and provide people with disaster relief

money that is so badly needed by thousands of families. >> harry reid says his bill is also bipartisan. >> there was no discussion with anyone on our side of the capital about the ad hoc approach he decided to take it some point last week. thank you, all. >> after this briefing, the senate voted to reject the bill passed by the house. democratic leaders held their own briefing and talked about their efforts to fund fema and ways to avoid a government shutdown. this is 25 minutes.

>> the bill we have on the floor is reasonable. it funds the government at the levels we agreed upon in july. we totally agree on that. in addition to that, we have taken the money the house said should be in fema and we put it in there without the offsets. we've compromised even though the house has a bill that we passed on a bipartisan basis that they have not taken up. what we have done averts a government shutdown and make sure -- makes sure that thousands of americans get the relief that they deserve.

it also maintains our position that we should not have to kill jobs to bring disaster relief to people who need it. i am aware of the speeches given on the house floor by my colleagues and others who spoke out. is it really fair that to fund disaster relief we take american jobs? we're finding all kinds of things and paid for now. -- refunding all kinds of things not paid for now around the world. we should not have to take american jobs to fund disaster relief. our bill does that. it is the way that government should work. the two sides meet in the middle and find common ground. that is what we've tried to do. that is what this legislation does on the senate floor now. unfortunately, my colleagues in the house of taking an opposite approach. et what theyd not g

wanted, they moved towards the tea party instead of the middle. these are important issues. i am calling on my colleagues to take the weekend, work with us, cool off, let us work together to find common ground. i am directly calling on speaker boehner, leader mcconnell, and to pick any time to meet. the senate will be here next week to make sure we resolve these issues. i hope the house republican colleagues will join with us. i am confident if we work together we can find a solution. the solution is there if people would read our legislation. it is there. if funds the government at the levels we agreed on in july. gives the mother relief that they need. -- it gives fema and the relief that they need. americans are suffering from natural disaster all across the

country. they're counting on us to do that. we need to find a solution and i am confident that we can. americans want to see their government work together. they're counting on us to do this. speaker pelosi? >> thank you for the invitation to be here today and for your great leadership in addressing this challenge. we have not seen this before in a time of national disaster where one party or the other has said it and must be paid for. i associate myself with all of the remarks you have made. as you speaking, i was thinking of the families that we have met along the way that have been affected by the natural disasters. on wednesday, fema may be

running dry in addition to the september 30 deadline. this is not the time to say we're going to balance the budget on the backs of those affected by natural disasters. you never know where the next one is. fires have been out of control in texas. we have joplin, missouri, we have tornadoes and hurricanes along the east coast. we do not know what is next. we need more. i fully support what you have proposed in the senate bill. i think it is a good compromise to support the funding in the house bill and on the other side remove the need for it to be paid for. that seems to be an excellent compromise. the pay for kills jobs and increases the deficit by

decreasing the prospects for good paying jobs. i salute what you are doing. we stand ready to meet whenever to come together to find agreement. the american people expect no less and they deserve much more. >> we should not play politics with disasters. each one of us at this into the room have been through it. we have had disasters in our own states. we know what it means, a lot of people are facing the worst experience of their lives. losing their homes, businesses, wondering if they will have a roof over their heads. each and every time that has happened in my service in congress, we have rallied behind the victims of disaster. we have not said we will go down to the congressional budget office to do some accounting to see if we can help our fellow americans. we stood behind them. we provided the funds. we were proud to do it because

we're part of the american family. when it comes to our efforts overseas, in iraq and afghanistan, they were not paid for at all. they were provided by the american taxpayers. there was no payment made. that is what the strategy of the house republicans on this is wrong. we have to maintain the tradition of keeping this american family intact in the midst of a disaster. if speaker boehner thought he could send us this bill that kills good manufacturing jobs to pay for disasters and leave town, i think you should take a look at the roll call we just had. only 36 members supported it. seven republicans joined us in moving to table the bill sent to us by senator -- speaker boehner. it is time to sit down and work out an agreement that keeps our word to the people of this country and the victims of disaster. what we have put together on the

set aside -- side is a legitimate compromise. if funds the government at the level we have all agreed to. it reaches a level of disaster aid consistent with speaker boehner's request. we've gone halfway. that is a true compromise and bipartisan effort. i hope we can bring our senate republicans around to defeat the boehner approach and stand with us in a bipartisan fashion on monday to fund our government and fema. >> senator schumer. >> i am pleased to join senator reid and senator schumer in urging our republican colleagues to reach a compromise.

last night, we had a debate on the house floor. republicans and democrats rose. there were compelling statement from a republican from pennsylvania and a republican from mississippi, talking about people who have been ravaged by floods and tornadoes. by floods and tornadoes. there were people ravaged by hurricane and drought. the stories were wrenching. the debate was, we need to help and we need to help now. we suggested last night that what the house was going to pass would not enjoy majority support in the united states senate. we were correct. the house determined to send that bill knowing full well that it would not enjoy a majority support. i would like to read two

statements that were made by mr. bremer mr. baker and mr. kantor within the last 12 days -- mr. boehner and mr. cantor in the last 12 days. the american people want common ground and i will be looking for it. on the same day, the majority leader said this, we have to focus on areas of commonality and try to transcend differences here. today harry reid offered a unanimous consent. a number of appropriations were offered. there was an agreement that

emergencies like natural disasters needed additional head room. there was an agreement that we would have additional spending if we were faced with a disaster. in the house debate, everyone understood we are faced with disaster. our republican friends in the senate are urged to do exactly what they suggested 12 days ago that we all should do, seek common ground. in our view, we want the entire level of funding that the administration and fema said was necessary. because the republicans do not agree on that figure, we have come to their figure in harry reid's proposal. we suggest we move forward to fund the government. everybody said yesterday on the house and senate floors that we do not want to shut down the government.

at a time of crisis in our economy, shutting down the government would be a job destroyer. i would like to commend senator schumer and senator reid for their leadership. i would urge those on the house side that you said we needed common ground. this is common ground. let's do it so that our people have the confidence that their government is there. i thank the senate for allowing us to join in this important statement. >> thank you, senators reid and senator hoyer. we had a bipartisan vote to defeat the house bill. it was not close. now is the time to work toward a reasonable and fair solution to fund disaster relief and avoid

unnecessary and destructive government shutdowns. the majority leader said he is willing to meet the house and senate leadership this weekend. we hope speaker boehner and senator mitch mcconnell will take him on the offer to negotiate a solution. our position is less talk over the weekend. their position is a take-it-or- leave-it. their proposal failed on the senate floor this morning. it is time for them to change their strategy. we have a still safe measure that we will vote on on monday. it is a bill that will keep the government funded at a level that democrats and republicans negotiated as part of the debt ceiling agreement. in a good-faith compromise, it contains the same amount of disaster relief funding that the house republican support it. the last thing we want to do is under funds fema in a year of record disasters, especially

after passing a bipartisan bill in the senate to fully fund fema last week. we are willing to adopt the house funding level and work out additional emergency funds at a later time. the only difference is that our bill does not require the job killing cuts that our of economy cannot afford right now. we trust the republicans agree with democrats that now is not the time to be cutting good paying american jobs and certainly not as a precondition to helping disaster victims across the country putting their lives back together after the tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes we have experienced in recent months have unnested all kinds of people who suffered in upstate new york. to put a political argument on

their backs is unfair and wrong. a number of republicans came up to me this morning and said they wanted to do the right thing and fund disaster relief. many of them are from states that are suffering. they know fema will run out of money and those states will be high and dry. now there has been a bipartisan vote to defeat the house bill. i trust these republicans will join us monday night and do the right thing and provide thema with the resources they need to help disaster victims before they run out of funding. people across the country will be reaching out to those republicans this weekend, particularly people in their state, to support what we are doing in a good-faith effort to make sure we do the right thing for our country, put politics aside, help disaster victims, and avoid an unnecessary and

harmful government shut down. >> questions? >> have you contacted banner of mcconnell? -- boehner or macondo? -- mitch mcconnell? >> i had a brief conversation with speaker john bennett today. it is pretty simple. it is not as if we will have to work our way through the budget reduction stuff again. it is a simple thing. i cannot understand their logic. we have agreed with their number. did they want the government to shut down? do they want fema to close? fema will close. they have money to go through monday and tuesday if we are

fortunate. >> you talked about taking the weekend to cool off. he talked about the need to get this money out there now, immediately. why wait? what has changed? >> government funding goes to the first of the month. fema is in more desperate shape. we have talked about making sure we finish this on monday. i do not think anything has changed other than what we have been seeing all week. >> do we have to go to the brink? >> the only alternative is to billulate to bjobsthe jobs in the house. this is not a close call. >> why not have the voted today

and dispose of it? -- have the vote today and dispose of it? >> we believe people need the opportunity to take a look at this. we have some unusual allies on this. the chamber of commerce. we do not usually trumpet the chamber of commerce. we have republican mayors and republican governors, governor christie and governor mcdowell are saying don't play games with fundamental -- governor mcdonnell.

tindal provides jobs also. that should be a question that speaker boehner and senator mitch mcconnell look at. we passed a bipartisan bill funding thema. it passed by a heavy -- we passed a bipartisan bill funding fema. it passed with a heavy majority. we have shown the will that the bill that have passed in the house by a narrow margin was overwhelmingly defeated here. i do not understand how anyone could suggest that anyone is at fault other than the republicans in the house. the republicans in the senate -- we will pick up significant

votes. >> is the white house involved in any of these negotiations? would it be helpful or appropriate for the president to call the house back into session? >> the president will do that if necessary. i hope it is not necessary. i hope all eyes will be upon it. we know what went on in the house yesterday. they were trolling for votes for more than 24 hours to try to get enough votes to satisfy the tea party. boy, did they make a bargain. i do not know the exact figure. it is about $28 billion. the grand bargain they made,

instead of $28 billion, they got 110 million. that was their bargain. if i was a gambler, but i am not -- i would think these are pretty bad eyodds. >> were you confident the house would pass the bill that senator reid brought up? >> that is the bill that comes back to the house, as i hope it will. we could pass that by unanimous consent. hopefully the speaker and mr. cantor will agree. the reason i read their statements from 12 days ago, this is common ground. agreement on the house number that was voted upon.

the only disagreement with the not having an offset. 8 bills that are listed where the republicans voted under president bush that do not have an offset. the staff tells me fema has never had an offset. on the emergency votes have had an offset, but not enough. if the senate is willing to go to the house number and the number for funding has already been agreed upon, it seems that that is the common ground that speaker boehner and cantor talked about. >> william jennings bryan, one

of the first politicians to campaign on the backs of trains and automobiles. he ran four times and lost. he is one of the politicians' feet here in the c-span series, "the contenders." learn about the series and our upcoming programs as c- span.org/thecontenders. what our live coverage of the book festival. eugene robinson on black america and african migration north and west. also, woodrow wilson's first ladies. at booktv.org.

>> admiral mullen said yesterday pakistan is exploiting violence in afghanistan. he spoke during a senate armed forces committee. it was defense secretary panetta's first appearance in front of the committee and admiral mullen's final testimony before retiring at the end of the month. this runs three hours, 15 minutes.

>> since the admiral's appointment as the 17th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in 2007 and his reappointment by president obama in 2009, admiral mullen has led our armed forces through one of the most complex security challenges of recent history. among the challenges occurring on admiral mullen's watch have been the following. the draw-down of forces in iraq, the surge of troops in afghanistan, the reduction of u.s. troops in afghanistan, support of nato operations in libya, management of a volatile relationship with the pakistani military, counter-terrorism operations against al qaeda and other transnational groups, and

being raised by our special operations forces that killed bin laden in pakistan. -- raids by our special operations forces that killed bin laden in pakistan. admiral mullen has offered dedicated leadership and courageous military judgment. admiral mullen has been joined throughout this time by his wife deborah, who has been equally tireless in promoting the initiatives on behalf of our military families and wounded warriors. on behalf of everyone on this committee, thank you. the strategy the president chartered in 2009 in his west point speech is on track to achieve his objectives. these include disrupting, dismantling, and the grating al

qaeda. so that afghanistan will not serve as a safe haven for extremist plotting attacks against us. the present's strategy called for an additional 33,000 u.s. troops to afghanistan to break the insurgency's momentum, to help build the capacity of the afghan security forces. he stated at that time that 18 months later, the u.s. surge troops would begin to come home. our military men and women have performed admirably. they have reversed the insurgency's momentum in afghanistan and seize the initiative in key areas, including taliban strongholds. the nato training mission has added 100,000 soldiers and police to the ranks of the

afghan security forces. you are partnered with coalition forces in the field and are in the lead increasingly in the operations. suicide attacks -- the assassination of the leader of the afghanistan height peace council passed with pursuing talks with the taliban was tragic. that despicable act only highlights that the taliban can no longer hold territory and are detested more than ever by the afghan people because of their attacks on civilians. the president's decision to bring home the u.s. search surge forces maintain the highest urgency. the afghan army and police will grow by 70,000 to a total of

350,000. these forces will be in the lead, be more capable and equipped and more willing to take on the taliban. the growing capabilities of the afghan security forces represent the best chance for success of the mission, creating a secure afghanistan which can no longer be the staging ground for an attack against us. this committee has heard directly from military commanders charged with implementing the president's decision. they say they support it. this includes admiral mullen and his successor, general john allen. afghan security forces have assumed the lead in several areas throughout afghanistan.

nato participating countries have agreed with president obama and president karzai. afghan security forces should recent -- as soon irresponsibility of protecting the afghan people throughout the country by 2014. this transition to afghan control does not mean denied to states will abandon afghanistan. there is a partnership agreement currently being negotiated between denied this case and afghanistan. it will help define the long term relationship between the two countries and play an important role in demonstrating to afghanistan and its neighbors that the united states intends to remain engaged in this region and we are not going to repeat the mistakes of 1989 when the denied this case turned its attention elsewhere following be so -- following the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan.

-- in 1989 when they turned their attention elsewhere following the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan. the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan has said that a series of recent attacks, including the deadly attack on the u.s. embassy compound in kabul, were operatives operating out of pakistan. it has been said there is evidence linking this network to the pakistan government. the ambassador added that this is something that must stop. secretary panetta once said that the message they need to know is that we will do everything we can to defend our forces. i was glad to read a few days

ago that pakistan's leaders have been personally informed that we are going to do just that an act more directly. i have written for the secretary to press to have been group to the list of foreign terrorist organizations, to make more tools available to our government to sanction that operation. i hope the state department will move quickly to designate this group as a form terrorist organization. i visited afghanistan in august. i heard repeatedly of the insurgents safe havens in afghanistan posed the main threat to our troops in afghanistan. in our discussion with pakistan officials, we heard the same excuses that we are ready for.

-- that we heard before about why pakistan operatives are reluctant to go after this terrorist network. when i asked what pakistan has not publicly condemned the deadly cross border attacks on our troops by the afghan taliban, an answer was not provided as to why there has been at least no public condemnation by pat -- by pakistan's leaders of those terrorists who are using their soil to cross the border into afghanistan. it is simply unacceptable that these deadly attacks on our forces continue while pakistan's leaders declined to go after them or has failed to publication -- to publicly condemn their violent, cross border attacks. because of connections between

pakistan intelligence and the tiny, -- and the terrorist group, the onus remains on us. in order for there to be a relationship between our two countries, pakistan must break its ties with the militant extremists, using their soil against us. that is the balance of my statement relative to afghanistan and iraq. it will be put in the record at this point. i call upon senator mccain. >> that we think our distinguished witnesses for joining us this morning and there distinguished service to our country. i recognize admiral mullen in his final appearance before our committee as the chairman of the joint chiefs. thank him for his commitment to

our nation and to the fellows in men and -- men and women in uniform. this is an important time in this committee to consider the wars in iraq and afghanistan. if we continue on our current trajectory, all u.s. troops will be out of iraq in just over three months. 10 dozen u.s. force -- u.s. forces will depart from afghanistan. as part of the drawdown schedule, i have deep reservations about both of these deadlines. in iraq during my repeated visits to that country, every military commander i spoke with has told me that denied this case must leave at least 10,000 troops in iraq to support the iraqi peace and support the iraqi stability, which most of our nations have paid a huge price in blood and treasure to

achieve so far. for this reason, we were concerned to see media reports suggesting the administration had dramatically reduced the number of troops and was considering a post-2011 force in iraq and 3000 troops. administration officials have sent official numbers that are not final. no ultimate decision has been made. i hope this is true. everything i have heard from our military commanders on the ground leads me to believe that my presence in iraq -- their presence in iraq after this year would jeopardize the changes we have made in that strategically important country. witnesses testified to this committee in february that iraqi security forces still have major gaps in their company -- their capabilities. this leads to a set of missions in which iraqi forces will

acquire sustained u.s. military support. from intelligence collection to maintenance hundred calories -- counter-terrorism operations. most importantly, a continued need for u.s. forces in the disputed territories of northern iraq. if u.s. military support is not forthcoming to help iraqi forces fill these gaps, the country's stability will be put at great risk. i understand that americans are more wary. -- war weary. i urge the president to maintain the forces in iraq. in short, the administration must ensure that it does not withdraw from iraq as irresponsibly as they claim the bush demonstration was in

invading iraq. i would like someone to listen to our military commander in afghanistan and considered selling the pace of the drawdown. as general petraeus testified, no military commander recommended the plan the president adopted, to draw down 10,000 troops this year and the remaining 23,000 surge troops by next summer. the reason about commanders recommended this drawdown plan is because it would take by a combat power out of the hands of our commanders on the ground just when they needed most, during next year's fighting season, which will continue through the summer. after 10 hard years of fighting and the process of success be within reach at the moment we

should be limiting the risks to our mission, the president's plan would do the opposite and increase the difficulties and risk to our mission. i've visited afghanistan in july again and it goes clear our counterinsurgency strategy is working at a tactical military level. in all of the ways admiral mullen testified, our counterterrorism operations are inflicting enormous damage on al qaeda and their talabani allies. me and our afghan partners have taken money away from the -- have taken troops away from the insurgency. these send a damaging signal to our afghan friends who fear that our security gains are fleeting and the taliban will return to power. such attacks are occurring from

a position of weakness, not to mounting strength. now is not the time to put our security gains at unnecessary risk. this is especially true in light of the ongoing challenges we face in this campaign, the challenges that have not addressed, but limited or justified the capital gains our troops are making at such great cost. one such challenge is the persistence of a week, corrupt, and planetary half -- predatory afghan government. in certain groups continue to enjoy a sanctuary in the country as well as active support from the pakistani intelligence service, which they continue to use to attack and kill afghans, pakistanis, and americans. this is the fundamental reality from which we must proceed in evaluating our policy toward pakistan.

we must also recognize that abandoning pakistan is that the answer. we tried that once. we cut off u.s. assistance to pakistan in the past and the problem got worse and not better. i say this with all humility. not recognizing the better alternative, i hope this hearing will provide some clarity on how to proceed in this critical matter that will have the largest bearing of all of our national security interests. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. >> i would ask that my full statement be made part of the record. senator mccain and members of this committee. it is an honor for me to appear before you for the first time as secretary of defense and represent the men and women of the department of our armed forces.

i want to thank you won their behalf for your dedication and for your support, particularly in a time of war, and for your determination in doing everything possible to insure that they can see in their mission of protecting america and keeping us say. testified before this committee and placed i would treat congress as a full partner. in the months since, i had the opportunity to consult with many of you on all the challenges that the department faces. i will continue to do so. it is important to have your guidance and your council as we deal with challenges facing our department. before turning to the pressing issues and the challenges of the wars in iraq and afghanistan, i would like to briefly address the challenge of the defense budget.

, which relates to everything we do. as you know, the department has been undergoing be strategy- driven process. to prepare to implement the more than $450 billion in savings that will be required of the next 10 years this review is ongoing. no specific decisions have been made at this point. i am determined to make these decisions strategically, looking at the needs that our defense department has to face not just now, but in the future so that we can maintain the most dominant military in the world, a force that is at joe -- that is agile, capable and adaptable. these adjustments will require

hard decisions. those decisions will force us to take on greater risk. my goal is to try to make those risks successful. that is a reality. the guidelines that i will be putting in place as we move forward on these decisions are the following. i want to maintain the best military in the world. secondly, i do not want to how the force. that is that we have gone through these reductions in the past, we have hollowed out the force. insulin not going to do that. thirdly, it requires the balanced approach. in order to achieve the significant reductions i am required to do. i will look at all areas. i will look at it efficiencie,

reducing overhead and try to secure additional savings in those areas. creating greater competition with regard to our procurement area. i will look it decompensation area. in some of those areas, costs have increased by 80%. health-care costs $53 billion. i have to do it in a way that does not jeopardize the volunteer force. to that extent, i have to maintain faith with those who have gone deployment after deployment, but their lives on the line. we cannot undermine the commitment we made to them. we have to look at reforms in these areas. we had to maintain faith with those who are out there fighting

every day. we are going to have to look at how we turn a corner. we have gone through a decade of war in which the defense budget has doubled. we have to be able to fight wars and win wars if we have to. that is the challenge that we face as we confront this budget issue the department is taking on its share of the efforts to achieve this discipline. sequestration would do catastrophic damage to our

military and its ability to protect our country. i know you share my concern about the process of sequestering. it makes cuts across the board and guarantees we will not allow the force. i am confident that we can meet our national security responsibilities and do our part to help this country get its fiscal house in order. at the same time, we must maintain a strong national defense. we do not have to make a choice between fiscal security and national security. even if the department grapples with the budget, our most immediate challenge is the war in afghanistan and iraq. there are challenges that remain in achieving our strategic objectives. let me address both of these efforts.

i will begin with iraq. our focus has been on ending the war in a responsible way that allows iraq to become a secure, sovereign, stable, self-reliant nation and a positive force for stability in that region. fewer than 50,000 u.s. forces remain in iraq. based on the november 2008 security agreement with iraqi government and the last the administration, we are planning to draw down our combat troops in iraq by the end of the year. as you know, last month the iraqi political leadership indicated publicly that they are interested in an ongoing training relationship with the united states in a post 2011. . as result, the general and the ambassador had been in a process of negotiating with iraqi

leaders on how we can address their needs. we are seriously considering this request, and i want to make clear that no final decisions have been made. i want to be clear that any future security relationship in iraq will be different from the one we have had since 2003. united states wants a normal, productive relationship and a close strategic partnership with a sovereign iraq and with other countries similar to the provisions we have with other countries in the region and around a world. this kind of security assistance would be a means of furthering our strategic partnership with iraq that looks to the kind of future role that can best address their security needs.

there's no question that challenges remain there. they have to develop a resolution to the kirkuk situation. they have to pass a hydrocarbons' law. the have to deal with iranian supported shia groups that have been attacking their forces as well as ours. they have to have security efforts to go after the remnants of al qaeda which still remain in iraq. they have to work at a political process that build a safer and stronger iraq for the future. as we move decisively since 2009 to end the war in iraq, we have also turned our attention, our focus, and resources to afghanistan.

in order to build a secure country there that does not provide a safe country there to up high debt or its affiliates. because of the hard work and the sacrifices, afghan and coalition forces, we have established conditions that are reporting afghans on the path to assume leave responsibility for security nationwide by the end of 2014. the insurgency has been turned back in much of the country, including its heartland in the south. the afghan national security forces are increasingly strong and capable, and as the chairman pointed out, we have made some of the progress with regard to our primary mission of disrupting, dismantling, and ultimately defeating al qaeda, particularly with the operations laden.ok down beeiin

this progress has begun the transition to afghan security control. we have done that in seven areas of the country since july. we began implementing a gradual and response will drawdown that is the central to the success of that transition process, and lasting security and stability in afghanistan. general allen, who has briefed me just this week again is in the process of leaving out those plans that will provide a responsible transition. this will not undermine the security of afghanistan. while my overall assessment is that our effort in afghanistan is headed in the right direction, i think we also have to be clear-eyed about the challenges that remain. for the as the taliban received control of areas lester, they should do to greater reliance

on headline-grabbing a tax free seencent weeks we have high-profile attacks, including the attempt to attack the united states embassy in kabul last week and the assassination of former president rabbani this last tuesday. at this time of loss, have conveyed our condolences to the family of professor rabbani and the afghan people, but we are concerned these attacks causing the loss of life and because they have represented a disruption of the process we have made, must be confronted and cannot be allowed to continue. overall we judge this change in tax -- in tactics to be a shift in momentum in our favor. while overall violence is going down, and down substantially in

areas where we concentrated the surge, must be more effective in stopping these attacks and lived to -- limiting the ability of the insurgents to create perceptions of increasing security. we are working with afghan counterparts to discuss how we can provide better protection against these attacks. the bottom line is that we cannot let these sporadic attacks deter us from the progress that we have made. the second challenge is the difficult campaign we have had a bus in the east, where the demography, cultural geography, and the continuing presence of safe havens in pakistan did the insurgents advantages they have lost elsewhere in the country. we cannot allow terrorists to have safe havens from which they launch attacks and kill our forces. we cannot allow that to happen. we have to bring pressure on the

pakistanis on their part to do that issue. the third key challenge is that we must not underestimate the difficult task the afghans still face in developing governments that can meet the minimum needs of the afghan people and help them take an sustained control of their country. i believe we are capable of meeting the challenges. if we keep our efforts focused maintain our dedication to the fight. we have had some tough days in this campaign, and undoubtedly there are more tough days that lie ahead. this is a heavy burden that i feel personally now, as secretary of defense, every time i write a condolence letter. since taking this office, i have been to dover to receive the remains of those who were killed in the helicopter crash last month. i have been to arlington and i have been to bethesda.

in spending time with families of those who have died or have been seriously wounded in the service of this country, there is not a family member who has not come up to me and said, if you really care about what happened to my loved one, you will carry on the mission that they gave baylor -- their life for hoare were seriously wounded. we owe it to those who paid this price to continue the hard work of doing this right here in protecting our country. i would also like to close by recognizing the man sitting next to me, mike mullen. he has worked tirelessly and successfully to advocate effective operations in afghanistan and iraq and the strategy that is now bearing fruit owes much to his vision and his determination. i know that all of you and that all of america join me in thanking him for his decades of dedicated service and his

extraordinary work on behalf of our country and our men and women in uniform. mike has set a standard for responsibilities and performance of chairman that will forever be his legacy, and i am deeply grateful for his service and his french. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. admiral molullen. >> as he said, most likely, i like senator mccain's characterization, that it definitely will be my last hearing. this will be my last time that i will appear before you in uniform. let me express my deep gratitude for the exceptional support you provide our men and women and our families. you and i may not always agree

on every issue, and it is fair to say that you did not always agree amongst yourselves, but none of you ever has failed before most in your mind the best interests of our troops and their families. the issues you debate here, the votes you take, all in the balance the very lives of america's sons and daughters. where the fight, who may fly, how they fight, and what care and support they need when they come home from the fight dominate your discussions. it is easy to lose perspective in this town, to forget what really matters. you have not, and for that, deborah and i r e turley grateful. now let me turn to some of those fights that i talked about. in afghanistan i believe the security situation is steadily improving. the military component of our strategy, to the extent it can be separated from the strategy

as a whole, is meeting objectives. wrested thees have risqu momentum in several key areas. the number of attacks for several months been the same or lower than it was at the same time last year. we are on a pace and even slightly ahead of our goals for the afghan national security forces. the process for transition to afghan lead a certain distance and provinces has already begun, with seven localities now in afghan hands, and we are well postured to begin the withdrawal of 10,000 american troops by the end of this year. as we have advanced, the taliban have adapted. more than ever before they are concentrating their efforts on attacks that will produce a maximum psychological impact for a minimum investment in manpower or military can illegally. the reason truck bomb falls into

this category, as the attacks in kabul last week, including the one on our embassy, and the assassination tuesday of the former afghan president rabbani. these acts of violence are as much about headlines and playing on the fears of a traumatized people as they are about inflicted casualties, maybe even more so. we must not misconstrue them. they are serious and significant and in shaping perceptions, but they do not represent a sea change in the eyes of military success. we will continue to work with the afghan government to improve the protection of keep leaders. we will continue to put pressure on the enemy and expand the ansf capability and the territory they hold. no amount of military success alone in counterinsurgency is

ever enough. other critical challenges plague us. challenges the undermine our efforts and place our success at risk in the region. first in my view is the pernicious effect of poor governance and corruption. corruption makes a mockery of the role all law. -- the rule of law. it sends an aggrieved populist further into the waiting arms of the taliban. if we continue to draw down forces while such public and systemic corruption is left unchecked, i believe we rest leaving behind a government which we cannot reasonably expect afghans to have faith. at best, this would lead to localized conflict inside the country. at worst, it could lead to government collapsed and civil war. a second of no less worrisome challenge we face is the impunity with which certain extremist groups are allowed to

operate from pakistan soil. the network for one tax as a variable arm of pakistan's internal services intelligence agency. with isi support, offered as conducted that bomb attack as well as our assault on our embassy. now have incredible intelligence they were behind the june 28 attack on the intercontinental hotel in kabul and host of other smaller operations. in choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of pakistan, and most especially the pakistan army and isi, jeopardize is not only of the prospect of our strategic partnership, but pakistan possible opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence. they make the leap that by using these properties they are hedging their bets or redressing

what they feel is an imbalance in regional power. in reality have already lost that bet. by exporting violence, they have eroded their internal security and their position in the region. they have undermined their international credibility and threatened their economic well- being. only a decision to break with this policy can pave the road to a positive future for pakistan. as you know i have extended the enormous energy on this relationship. i have met with the general more than two dozen times, including a meeting last weekend in spain. i've done this because i believe in the importance of pakistan to the region, because i believe we share a common interest against terrorism, and because i recognize the great political and economic difficulties pakistan faces. i have done this because i believe that a flawed and difficult relationship is better than no relationship at all. some may argue i have wasted my

time, that pakistan is no closer to us than before. it may now drift even further away. i disagree. military cooperation again is warming. information flow between us and across the border is quickening. transparency is returning slowly. with pakistan's help we have disrupted output and it's senior leadership in the border regions and degraded its ability to plan and conduct terror attacks. i think it would -- we would be a far tougher situation in the wake of the frosted this which fell over us after the been in laden raid, if not for the fact that we could at least have a conversation ahead, albeit as the glove that conversation would be. what matters now is moving forward. while the relationship must be guided with clear principles, we

can no longer focused solely on the most obvious issues. we should help create more stakeholders and pakistan's prosperity, help the pakistan people address their economic, political, and its internal security challenges and promote indian-pakistan cooperation on the basis of true sovereign equality. it cannot just always be about counter-terrorism, not in long run. success will require effort outside the realm of security. we must agree upon a strategic partnership declaration with afghanistan that will clarify and codify our long-term relationship. we must not work toward a reconciliation process, internal to afghanistan, that provides for redress of grievances and a state-to-state relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. we must make clear to friends and enemies that an american

interest and commitment are not defined by boots on the ground, but by persistent, open, and mutually beneficial engagement. that leads me briefly to iraq, where we are now ending our military mission and setting the stage for just such a long term strategic partnership. we are on pace to remove all american troops by the end of the year. for the strategic framework agreement. we are also in discussions with the iraqi government about the possibility of leaving behind a residual training force. no final decisions have been made by either our government or theirs, but i can tell you the focus of those discussions remains centered on capability, the source of capabilities for which the iraqis believe they need help and the sorts of capabilities we believe we can offer them. i know you share my conviction that having shed the blood we have shed in places like mosul,

fallujah, to crete, and busra, we owe it not just to the iraqi people, but to the memory of those who never made it home, to get this partnership right for the future. mr. chairman, i came into this job hobbled by these efforts and the source of what sorts of challenges that exist in the in iraq and afghanistan. i finish with the knowledge that one of those wars is ending well. i leave hubble now but the performance and resilience of men and women and their families who did not shrink from duty when dewey sent them in harm's way. again, thank you for all you have done to make possible what they have done. >> at roll call on behalf of every member of this committee and every member of the senate,

and the people who we represent, we thank you for the extraordinary service and your statement as well. let's try a seven-minute first round. let me go back to pakistan. admiral, you make a very strong statement about the pakistanis getting safe haven to the al qaeda group. they are attacking and killing our people. the afghan troops, the coalition troops. and i totally share it and i want to ask the secretary the first question. i assume from your statement that you basically share what admiral moreland has said, perhaps more detail that you did, but you basically share his thoughts about the need for pakistan to and that safe haven

situation. >> absolutely. a lot and he said the other day that we are not going to allow these types of attacks to go on, and i am wondering, can you make it clear what kind of options are available to us to stop those attacks if the pakistanis will not prevent them from happening? >> mr. chairman the i made clear that we are going to do everything we have to do to defend our forces. i do not think it would be helpful to describe what those options would like and talk about what operational steps we might -- may or may not take. the first order of business right now is to frankly put as much pressure on pakistan as we can to deal with this issue from their side. admiral mullen has met a general, and chicago director

petraeus has met with -- and director petraeus has met with others. they must take steps to prevent the safe haven that the hakanis are using. we cannot allow these kinds of terrorists to be able to go into afghanistan, attack our forces, and then returned to pakistan for safe haven and not face any kind of pressure from the pakistanis for that to stop. >> we have heard their excuses for some time, and i pressed -- about not even public condemning those attacks three his first reaction was that he has, and i said, send me the clippings, if you have. he backed off immediately and said, maybe i did not, but a lower level, we made statements publicly. mr. secretary, a number of us

have told the pakistanis directly that we are going to have to stay -- to take steps to end these attacks, and although you are not able to outline those kinds of possibilities here publicly, would you say that the pakistan leaders are aware of what options are open to us so they are not caught by any surprise if in fact we take steps against that network? >> i do not think they would be surprised by the actions that we might or might not take. >> admiral, on the troop reductions in pakistan, the president has announced that after the surge forces are returned home, 33,000 by next summer, that our troops are

going to continue to come home at a steady pace, as afghan security forces moved into the lead. is that a position or policy that you support? >> i do. >> general, is it your assessment that the nato training mission is on track to build an afghan army capable of assuming security responsibility in afghanistan in accord with the timetable that has been set? >> from my own perspective on the training mission, if we go back a couple of years, and i think sometimes we understand the significant improvements, we have no structure, meaning schools, classrooms, curriculum's, etc., a couple of years ago, and i think general

bill caldwell and a lot of other people have focused on this in a way that has provided a dramatic, breakthrough and ramp- up of afghan security worse capability, and many of us a couple of years ago, yourself included, mr. chairman, increasingly concerned about the police in particular, not unlike iraq. the police training and getting them on the street lags the military. but that gap has been significantly closed. the issue of a literacy, which was a huge issue, and it still remains a huge challenge, we have put in place a literacy chip -- training, which has been effected. we see them during the week, we have somewhere between 25,035 thousand afghan military police in training. we are putting in place branch schools for their army.

we have improved the training capacity and capability for -- on their air force, for their air force. we have made great strides there. they are more and more taking the lead in the field. and i am encouraged by the and that since -- by the advancements. there been a lot of tough issues. the way has been integrated is a great improvement, and i think so far it has been very successful. we are by no means where we need to be as of this moment, although. there is a lot of hard work yet. >> you believe it will allow us to meet the calendar? >> as far as i believe, yes, sir. >> thank you. with regard to iraq, there is a security agreement that was entered into by president bush and prime minister matti in 2008 which set a deadline of december

31 of this year for the withdrawal of the remaining u.s. troops in iraq. after eight and half years of conflict in iraq, the end of this year is going to mark the completion of the transition of responsibility for iraq's security to the government of iraq. what you have testified to here today is what we are considering, a training mission. at the request of the iraqis, so that that particular part of our presence could remain, if it is negotiated and agreed to. the chief of staff of the army is cautious that we should avoid creating the impression of a large american presence in iraq by agreeing to have too

many soldiers, u.s. soldiers, in that country after the deadline to withdraw this december. do you, first of all, have you read those comments of the journal, or have you talked to him, and do you agreed that that appearance needs to be avoided? >> i did talk to the general about his comments, and we had a very good discussion about that. >> i assume you are urged him to keep part of the comments private while the president is considering his decision? >> there was no one more sensitive when he was a commander to comments of some of us in washington. we just all have to be very careful. >> i agree. putting that aside, would you agree that we must be careful to avoid keeping a large number of troops in iraq and being

consistent with the agreement that president bush has entered into number 2, that it could unleash street demonstrations which possibly could result in instability, but what ever we are negotiating should be at the request of the iraqis and we should be very careful in terms of the numbers that we might negotiate? >> we have to be very careful about the numbers. for me, at a very high level, the most critical part is to get the strategic partnership right. we really are in the middle of negotiations right now with respect to what do the iraq's iraqis want and what can the leadership deliver. there has been no decision at this point. >> the issue is not what the iraqis want. the issue is what we believe is going to be appropriate after they make a request. is that correct?

>> i think it will be, but that is part of the negotiation. >> mr. secretary, do you want at any thing to that in terms of adding trading missions in iraq? >> i think it is important that the whole purpose of the negotiations is to listen to what is it that they need in order to ensure that they can provide a security in order to insure that they can deal with the threat of terrorism in order to ensure that they can take the steps necessary to be able to deal with security threats within the country. we have got to take -- to listen to their needs, take them into consideration, indicate what can be provided in order to meet those concerns, and then through a process of negotiations, are arrive at what is that going to look at. that is the process that is going on now. it will be limited, clearly.

it will not clearly be reflected by the numbers we have had in the past. it does have to meet their needs, and that is what is being negotiated as we speak. >> senator mccain? >> secretary panetta, i do not want to waste your time, but the fact is that one of the reasons why this has been delayed as much as it has is because the iraqis are wanting to know what our assessment was asked how many troops should be there, and that has not been forthcoming, and it is very difficult for the iraqis to make a decision without us making our input into what those needs are. and if we are basing it all on the iraqi needs, that is an incomplete picture because we need to know what the mayor of's national security needs are, which is paramount for leading iraqi troops in harm's way. ullen, d believe

that u.s. troops remain in the disputed territories? >> that is a contentious area. >> de believe or not believe -- >> i think the security posture in that area has to be such that it does not in any way shape or form blow up. it is a very tough area, and the exact composition of the how that should happen is a product of these negotiations. quite frankly -- >> so you will not give me an answer as to whether we need have a residual peacekeeping force in northern iraq post 2011? >> very recently there is a contentious debate about that issue. >> i i understand. i am asking for your opinion. >> its composition is a i think

to be determined. heard saysmber i've 5000 jobs would be needed in that area to prevent what has already been a very volatile area, and if we were not there, there would be conflict. from a military and she standpoint, how beneficial would it be if the president decided to delay the departure of the remaining surge forces from the summer of next year until the end of next year? >> from the standpoint, as i testified to before, in terms of risk, the commanders -- every commander, and this is not just in general allen -- there is

increased risk, but to get it done by the end of the summer, and as i said to the chairman a little while ago, supporting the president's policy, general allen is working what he has to to the end of this year. he has not worked what it means through the end of next year. that will be based on conditions on the ground. generally speaking, the commander is on to what combat power for as long as possible. that said, the decision has been made to bring them out by summer, and i think the risk -- while the rest is up, i think it is mandell in that there is no question that we can get their ancestor in the military success and the military component of the campaign. thatere is no tdoubt every military leader, including general allen, believes that by accelerating withdrawals it

increases the military risk? >> it does increase the military risk, yes, sir. if i could say something quickly, one of the things we have learned, and all of you have been going to see iraq and afghanistan, certainly, if not longer than i, have learned a lot about the importance of composition of forces in addition to just sheer numbers. and so there has been pressure on both sides of this issue in two countries, and that is something that i take away at the end of my tour, that it is not just simply always about numbers. in afghanistan in particular, it is the combined security forces, because the afghan security forces are going to be in a lot better shape. that is just part of the lesson that i have learned. >> thank you. getting back to iraq, it is not

a training mission in the disputed areas, it is a peacekeeping mission. you have not got the complete picture of this tree risks in iraq as i have. mr. secretary, obviously you have stated publicly about, and i appreciate it very much, the degree of cooperation between ,he hakani network annie isis the charts, the ied factories, the ammonium nitrate factories. and you understandably said you could not share with us the operational options you half. i understand that. we better understand what the options are to bring about a change in the present status quo, which is not acceptable, and which is the network killing

americans being supported by pakistan. that congress has a role to play, especially not just in policy, but also in funding. i think you are going to have a real uphill battle here in convincing the congress to maintain a level of funding and assistance to pakistan unless there is some change. as i said, i do not know exactly what the way through this is. as i mentioned earlier, we tried cutting off relations with them once and that the not turn out what i strongly recommend that you start discussing with members of congress what our options are to try to bring about change in the status quo. could i mentioned, as in tuesday's killing of the former president rabbani, shows that the taliban does not want to reconcile, it wants to murder

and maim its way to victory? >> there is no question that when that happens and it is done by the taliban that it certainly is an indication that at least that particular faction, that that individual was from, is not interested in pursuing reconciliation if they are blowing up a peacemaker in the process. it does raise concerns. it raises suspicions. nevertheless, i think obviously we have to continue to try to pursue the opportunities that are out there, but we ought to do it with our eyes open. we ought to do with understanding who we are dealing with and where they're coming from and not expect that this is by any means going to be easy in dealing with them. >> my time has expired, but general allen said that it is pretty clear that the taliban

are still -- have as their highest priority when on the battlefield. you agree? >> from everything i have seen, the continued to pursue their k we cannd i do not thinkin underestimate where they are coming from. the best signal we can send is that we are going to continue to fight and be there and we are not going anywhere, and if we can send them that clear signal, that more than anything will influence their willingness to develop a reconciliation. >> to some degree that is becoming more aspirational in the discussion that i am having with general allen. their leadership parked in pakistan, the fighters on the field in afghanistan, are more and more at this grow. it is hard to resources them. they are merging -- moving further and further away from

accomplishing that part of their mission. >> i wish we were sending as clear a signal as you just described. i want to thank admiral mullen for his outstanding and dedicated service to the nation. >> senator reed? >> thank you, admiral mullen, for your great service to this nation and the remarkable service. in your opening comments you mentioned how you have been the principal intermediary with a general in pakistan, and when the history is written your contribution will be extraordinary, especially at the time they had to redeploy their border into injudia. in your dialogues with that general, and you have expressed

a complex relationship we have with pakistan. they are at times helping us immeasurably. at other times they are eating people who are attacking us. correct me if i'm wrong, there are two points that i hope you are making and one is that we will have a presence in afghanistan after 2014, a robust counter-terrorism presence, a training presence, and assistance presence, because one of the notions running around is that we are going to be all out by 2014 and it will be pakistan 's exclusive enclave. the seven. that you have raised, correct me if you think i am wrong, is when we come down in 2014, we will not have to rely upon the alliance of communications with

pakistan, which would give us more operational flexibility is despite any one region. is that accurate and have this point and made? >> it is important to note that we continue on this path to shift lead security responsibility to the afghans by 2014. while there may be ongoing discussions about what is next, the discussions that i have seen recently model iraq, shift to a training mission, and then obviously in negotiation with the afghans about what the long- term strategic relationship will be. that is why i think the strategic partnership decoration being negotiated is so important, because that really is the commitment we are going to be there longer than 2040. -- 2014. that long-term commitment is

absolutely critical. the pieces of it -- we have not put that the other. we can speculate about that. i honestly do not know, and there has been no determination, accepted say there is this long-term commitment and, and how we do that, which i think is critical, is going to be important. if we leave the region, it is my view, not unlike what happened before, we will be back. it will only get worse, and you got a very unstable -- two unstable countries, one with nuclear weapons, terrorists who seek nuclear weapons, and the proliferation of them, without any question, should with the part, will bring us back in a much more difficult situation. >> let me focus again on we are going to have a long-term presence, but it is going to be -- it is not to be the same footprint we have today.

to depend on the gasoline being trucked from karachi up through -- etc., etc., and correct me if i am wrong, that would give us more operational flexibly, which i hope the pakistanis would appreciate. >> we will have more operational flexibility because we will not have as many troops. we're working hard to create other options, even right now, to supply our troops. there are a lot of difficulties associated with that. i would not say we are wrong to be completely done with respect to meeting the ground lock coming up from the south. >> from the very beginning, the president has made clear that we will have an enduring presence there. we're in the process of negotiating that now.

it is clear that as we try to provide this transition that we are working towards, that in the future we have to be prepared to listen to their needs and what will they need in terms of training, security in the future that will give us the opportunity to ensure that all the gains that have been made will continue in the right track. >> me raise another aspect of the policy in the region, that is, as we come down, we are run to put a lot of increased burden upon the afghan national security forces, and i concur with your assessments that there has been remarkable progress. the question is can it be sustained, and then the issue of governance.

with respect -- i would have to think that the strongest element we have is the afghan security forces. the issue of corruption -- the task force, we are trying to root it out, but that is a long- term effort. then the question becomes, how are we going to finance the support of these afghan national security forces ? nternationalissu agreement? >> first of all, senator, i am relying a great deal on general allen as he develops the plans, not only for how we begin to

bring down surge, but also what happens between now and 2014. i have tremendous amounts of confidence in his ability to lay out out a plan that as we transition areas that we bring in capable afghan army, police to be able to provide the security. the seven areas that have already transitioned, by the way, it is working very well. admittedly, those are easier areas. we have more difficult areas to do. another tranche in the fall. one of the things he is working on is that there is a competent military force, afghan military force them in place to provide security. we will have a chance to see that take place, and that will obviously impact on how we measure the transition going down. with regard to the cost, it is a concern that we developed this

large force, what is the sustainability? it is not cheap. so the effort right now, and i think general allen is making good progress on this, is, how can we reduce the cost of how we maintain insisting that force in the future? they are making progress in reducing the cost. in the addition to the last, this is not a cost we ought to bear. this is a cost that nato and others ought to bear as well. >> take you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i echo the remarks you made for your service, admiral mullen. but jerry phanatic, i was jogging down things during your statement, -- secretary canada, i was jotting down things during your statement. a lot of people questioned the mission where we are today, that the ones who know is best are

the fighters in the field, the commanders and the field, and the families of those who have lost their lives. when you said that i was saying that was unique to me. as i visit the families of those who have lost people, i have yet o have one of them todeny about how we cannot allow this mission to be carried through. these are young people, and families of these young people. so i think that is pretty consistent, and not just in oklahoma in our exposure to these people, but elsewhere. the second thing you said which is significant is looking at any future cuts, whether they come through sequestration or anything else, would be devastating to our abilities. closely related to that, and the question i would ask you, when you talk about the hollow force, and how we can avoid a hollow force, the easy thing you

can do for somebody in your position is put all the resources, and all too often that is what happens, what is neglected is maintenance, modernization, and if we do not do that they are on tap a hollow force. i know what is happening to your resources. how are you going to maintain -- or avoid a hollow force that we have seen in the past? >> i think the key is not to take a simple way out, which is to reduce everything by some kind of percentage across the board, try to take everything down. that is what we have done in the past and the result is that training was weekend, the force was weekend. they did not have weaponry, equipment, training, and as a result, we did hollow out the force. my approach is to look at key areas here and make tough decisions with regards to

savings that in not involve just saying we are run to take everything down by a certain percentage. i am not going to do that. >> i would hope he would look to the future in terms of modernization and maintenance, those things that are not visible to the american people. that is what you meant and that is what you would do. let me ask both of you, senator reed talk about a long-term commitment, something that american people did not think about, and if we have to come back a year from now, each month that goes by, the terrorists gained greater capabilities. we're talking about nuclear capabilities, delivery systems. when netanyahu made his this year, his concern is each bit of time that goes by, the capability is increasing. to me, that ties into something

that i have thought of as a mistake, whether this president or past presidents, in making withdrawal dates, just the general concept, the fact that we are telling the enemy what to do, what we're going to do, when we are right to do it, and if they know the time line, in thinking about the mentality we're dealing with, we think in terms hours and days, they think in terms of years and decades. last week, ambassador crocker said, "what we have to do is demonstrate a strategic patients that is necessary to win a long war. it is thought to require more resources, more time, i hope to .ring those more to bear it has cost us a lot less than 9/11 did." in terms of the concept of

setting these dates, d you believe that the dates were set, july, to the 11, december, 2012, and december, 2014. do you think that and the streets should keep patience you were talking about? >> i understand your view on that. my approach to it is that the most important signal we can send is if we do this right and we pay attention to conditions on the ground and make sure that it works. whether we have a date or not, the key here is making this transition work, making sure that the areas that we transition to remain secure, making sure that that stability is put in place, making sure that we do not allow that country to ever again become a

safe haven for the taliban. in many ways, that is my test for whether this works or not. whether there's a date or not, obviously, we will have differences over that, but i think the real key is how do you conduct this transition in a way that makes clear that we are headed in the right direction? >> i thank you for that. i have to say this, during every visit i have made over there, the afghan coalition personnel said even as leslie said said thing that date was a bad decision. we have talked a little bit about something i've wanted to elaborate on, we seem to concentrate on the bad things. this thing that is happening over in terms of the training program, i was over there on new year's day, and i spent a long time gone over and looking at what they are doing in the kabul

of gerry training center. it mirrors what we're doing in this country, the segregation between military and our salary. i applaud anybody who had anything to do with that. the last figure that i got was $12 billion a year, and i would hope he would look at the success we're having their, not just in the abilities of these guys clear trend, but in their attitudes, because at each base they say, what are you doing this, and they're very proud. they're looking for the day when they are able to do the job that they are being trained for. do you have any comments? >> i visited a police academy there, and i took aaway exactly what you said. the officer corps is a different force, 85% to 95% force.

we have made great improvements. against what seemed to be impossible to years ago. -- two years ago. general caldwell has returned because of the analysis $1.6 billion in 2011. we note $12 billion the year is not going to work. there has been a lot of work now to look at how do you get that some of the lead down, and john allen has got a lot of confidence in that market. we know there's got to be something there long term, but it can not be at this level. from that model standpoint, i am very encouraged with where we are and where we have come from in less than 24 months. >> and i am, too. secretary panetta, you are .amiliar with this

my time is expired, but i have a question for the record. >> thank you. this will be asked for the record. thank you, senator inhofe. senator webb? >> thank you, senator, and let me join ever been else in thinking admiral mullen for his many years of service and adding a personal note in that we have had the pleasure of knowing each other for more years than i can count, since we were pleased at the naval academy, trying to figure out the hell and derby was and how you can measure the thermodynamic properties of steam. it has been a long journey, and mike mullen from day one all those years ago has been known for his forthrightness and his integrity.

it has been a great honor to be able to work with you -- in your present capacity, and we also wish were family and a bra well. she has done enormous things for veterans and those other areas. i thank you so much for your service, and i look forward to seeing you on other occasions. it occurred to me when listening to the exchange's that we tend to go tactical when we have these discussions, and at the same time from my perspective we should be struggling here with the strategic and operational model that we should be using, looking into the future, in order to address the issue of international terrorism. there is not a cure-all, but if we look at the models of the past 10 years, how we have

struggled with this issue, we ought to have a better idea in terms of how we are going to move in the future on these things. we can start with a model of iraq the discussions i have listened to today clearly indicate that we have inherited certain responsibilities as a result of what in my view was a great strategic blunder. there was no al qaeda activity in iraq when we invaded. we ended up as an occupying force in the middle of sectarian violence, following our innovation. we have stopped well over $1 trillion, and at the same time as i and others were predicting, we've seen the empowerment of iran in the process. we can then go to the afghanistan model where there were legitimate issues in terms of international terrorism school, but more recently we had assumed the risk and the expense of nation building. it is costly, is casualty

producing, and i quite frankly do not know what the outcome is going to be. i'm going to ask a question about that any minute. we have seen recently in addition to this model, in libya, where we have seen unbridled presidential discretion in terms of the decision when to use military power beyond all normal historical precedent. i have spoken about this many times. we have a definition of a humanitarian mission in order to unilaterally introduce the american military into a theater of operations. i worry about that. it is a vague and worrisome standard when you apply it to the future. when administration comes forward and says this is a conflict, which did not have to discuss that with the congress, we all ought to be thinking hard about the implications down the road. then we have especially recently

the use of special operations, predators from remote bases, attacking remote targets, highly secret missions in remote locations, and all of these occurring in areas which have fragile governmental systems or quite frankly no governmental systems. what i come back to is what have we learned from this? what is the model now for the future in terms of how we define the existential threat to the united states and how we apply the surry force? this is your final journey and i would appreciate your thoughts. >> i appreciate the french of that is pretty special of where we both came from.

i think honestly, what we are to some degree learning as we go here. decisions get made as to where we go to fight and how we fight, and we learn lessons from that. iraq, this is not standing whether we should have gone there or not, but certainly once there, with a conventional force that need to dramatically shift and the development of an understanding that which we have lost. we have forgotten about counterinsurgencies were, and now evolution in that regard to where we are. and in my view, which i spoke to very early in this job, left us under resources in afghanistan. it is clear the main effort has shifted their. in ways, it is the same kind of

fight, but a much different place, and the complexities are enormous, and it is not just one country anymore. back to iraq for a second, i hear the around emboldened peace, and i get that, -- i hear the iran emboldened piece, and what i have heard is in the arab spring, they have rejected outcry that, they have rejected iran. and then the president's decision with respect to libya, it was a completely different way to support the overall effort there. in these hearings and historically, we have beat nato to death. we have not heard a word today about nato support in afghanistan. i have met with all my

counterparts last week. it is extraordinary where they've is versus where they were two years or three years ago. i was delighted to see europe take the lead there. i do not get to decide what we did. however we got to that decision. i take the tactical counsel well, but there are a strategic implications for all of these things, significant differences. i would want to move carefully look at the lessons and integrate that into longer-term she take view, how do we get ahead of this? and right now it is one at that time. i would like to figure out -- for me there are fortwo is essential threats right now.

the nuclear threat in russia right now, which i think we have controlled right now, and the other is cyber. you posed very difficult questions that out of all this, if we can step back from day-to- day, we owe ourselves some answers about how to move ahead. it is not want to get any easier. i think there will be situations where the use of military force will continue to rise, maybe not on the scale that we have right now, but taking what we have learned, as the vocal as this decade has been, and figuring out what this means for the feature is a very important effort. ?> senator, if i could pr >> you have raised some very important issues, and this is a very appropriate time to raise those questions. we are in the process of trying to trim over $450 billion from

the defense budget. we have to look at larger strategy is here as to what kind of defense system we need build as we confront those >> it does not do it mean we put 150,000 people in two different countries to deal with that. we have ways to do that that are much more effective and more efficient that can confront that, but that is an area we need to talk about. we continue to have the threat of nuclear capability from old north korea and iran. we have to be prepared to deal with that threat. we have to be able to confront china and deal with a sigh of regret. we have to deal with the

challenge of other rising powers. these are the types of threats we have to confront. what type of force do we need to have that would make us effective at dealing with those threats? that is something that clearly i need your advice and guidance on as we try to structure the future in the defense department. >> i time has expired. and that point, just one sense -- one sentence that if you want the country to have the patience with respect to fighting a long war, i think it is going to be even more important to define very clearly what is the vital national interest in terms of our current operations in afghanistan. >> senator sessions. >> thank you for that good discussion. it is the kind of thing we do need to be talking about that is critical to the core of our strategic world positioning.

secretary panetta, you said the defense department had doubled in the last 10 years. actually, i find that to be 84% increase, not quite doubled. over 10 years, that is the base budget. that is a significant increase, but not as much as a lot of the other accounts in our government have had over the last 10 years. the war costs are beginning to come down. this year it is $159 billion. next year we expect $118 ticket the 10-year cost for both words was about $1.30 trillion, and that is less than this year's deficit. our total deficit will be about $1.40 trillion and the war costs

will be a little more than 10% of that. i think is so important for all of us to realize we will not balance the budget by the war cost coming down. it did cost us a lot of blood and a lot treasure, and we should never underestimate that. terms of balancing the budget, i am ranking on the budget committee so i am seeing these grim numbers and they are really tough. i believe the defense department's has to tighten its belt, as i think most of you do. admiral mullen, you have been quoted frequently about the greatest threat to our national security is our debt. i think it is. you have used today $450 billion as the amount that was part of the debt ceiling.

we have already voted. the vote we did on the debt ceiling takes the defense budget down to about $450 billion over 10 years, which is pushing 10%. however, the challenge of know you are faced with is what happens if there is not an agreement within the committee and the sequestered takes place. admiral mullen, it looks to me like it will be about $850 billion over 10 years, some have said a reduction in spending. in your best military judgment, is that acceptable? is that an acceptable reduction in spending? >> absolutely not. actually, our estimates go to about $1.10 trillion. it is not only just the amount, it is held it is executed.

it is peanut butter, it is everything. from my perspective, it has a good chance of breaking us and putting us in a position to not keep faith with this all volunteer force that has fought two wars and that needs to be reset in everything we look at for the future. it will impose a heavy penalty on developing equipment for the future, and if we are not able -- it will follow us out. i think we do need to participate, and i have argued for doing max in roughly -- doing that in roughly the current amount. secretary panetta said an important thing in his opening statement. whatever changes we may have to be strategically focused. we have got to have a strategy. having that strategy, or different views of the picture, and then what is it going to take to meet that? this is not the 1970's or the

1990's. this is a much more dangerous time because of the world we are living in, and the world keeps showing up on our doorstep for the use of the military. we have to be very judicious about it. the work we have done to look at how we would do this at the $450 million-plus level has forced us to look into the abyss of what it would be if we had to roughly double that. i think it would be incredibly dangerous for our country's national security to go there. to your point, we are not going to solve that debt problem on the back of the pentagon. it cannot do it if you 0 the budget. >> that is correct. we have 01 thousand four hundred billion dollars deficit and the total defense budget is $529 billion -- we have $1,400

billion deficit to >> if we cannot get some of the mandatory side, pay, benefits, those kind of things, we are way above 10% on the accounts that we can affect. modernization and force structure, which get smaller, faster. i think it would be significantly smaller and faster and i think it would be very dangerous. >> admiral mullen, just briefly, you said you could break the military. i have a sense about our fabulous men and women in uniform. they are willing to do tough things. they are willing to take their share of the cut, but it could be very demoralizing if there is a perception that have been

targeted for exceptional cuts that others are not taking. we do not agree? >> we have all talked about tightening our belts, and we don't get much push back. there could be some specific areas. there is concern for changing the retirement system. that is not on the immediate horizon. secretary panetta and i both agree we have to figure out as we make these changes that we grandfathered them properly to keep faith with those we contacted for that are in the force right now. but yes, they are extraordinary, and i think they are willing to do their fair share here, but they are not willing and should not be willing to do that at an exceptional level. >> let me just point out to my colleague, the sequester is not an across-the-board sequester. the defense department, even though last year it was a flat

budget, it got no increase basically last year and the base defense budget, so you are talking about 50% or more than that, whereas in the last 10 years, events has gone up 84%, but the food stamp program has gone up 297%. the medicaid program has gone up 113%. in the last year, in the last two years, non-defense discretionary went up 24%. what i am worried about is that our committee -- they really do need to reach an agreement that can produce some reductions in spending that are significant and meet the goals that the committee was given, but it

would be unacceptable, i think, to allow these unfair cuts. medicaid, for example, and the food stamps, earned income tax credit exempted under the sequester from any cuts. secretary panetta, thank you for your strong opening statement that represents amateur, solid view of where we are. would you like to comment before we wrap up? >> senator, i am probably one of the few people here, having worked on a number of budget summits, that ultimately did achieve a balanced budget. let me tell you, if the idea is that you can rely on sequester in order to get there, that is an irresponsible view. i was in the conference in

gramm-rudman when we fashioned a person questor, and it involved entitlement programs as part of the sequestered. that is why it never happened. when you develop these kind of doomsday mechanisms that are supposed to blow everybody up in the hope they will do the right thing, very frankly, it does not work very well. the responsibility does live with people in that committee to look at the entire federal budget. it cannot deal with the federal budget that is close to $4 trillion and expect they can do it on the discretionary side alone. discretionary accounts for one- third of that budget. two-thirds of that budget is in the mandatory area. you have to be able to put all that on the table if you are serious about deficit reduction. >> based on your experience in the previous effort that succeeded in balancing the budget, would you agree that the depth of our challenge this time

is far greater than it was when you made that achievement last time? >> the last time we balance the budget, i thought we were in valhalla and we would be able to continue to operate on a balanced budget, and it would stay in place. we would not dare put us back into a huge deficit again. unfortunately, that happened, and now it is much worse than when i fixed that issue. it is a huge challenge, but nevertheless, this congress has responsibility to get us on track to ultimately reduce that. >> thank you, senator sessions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to say good morning and add my welcome to our witnesses this morning. admiral mullen, please -- i join

my colleagues in thanking you and your family for the many years of outstanding service to our country, and to my classmates, secretary panetta, i want to say hello to you, too, and to sylvia, and wish you well in your responsibilities. i want to thank all the men and women in uniform, as well as their families for all the sacrifices. we face difficult decisions regarding our future in iraq and afghanistan. however, the one thing that is not in doubt is the fact that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines continue to serve with honor and distinction, and we are proud of them. the special inspector general

for afghanistan released an audit showing that efforts to track the billions of dollars in aid provided to afghanistan since 2002 has been hampered by numerous factors. as we look to the future, what are some of the adjustments being made to increase accountability of how these dollars are being spent? >> one of my concerns is technet i think we have to be able to audit the books of the defense department. while this is done now in each of the areas, we don't have an overall our ability for the defense department. the effort right now is on track for 2017 in order to complete

that process. i think that is too long. we have to be accountable to the american people about how these dollars are being spent. for that reason, i basically urged all the people in our budget shop to do everything necessary to try to speed that process up so that we can track these dollars and make certain that the taxpayers are getting the best bang for the buck. >> secretary panetta, last quarter isaf rated three additional units within the afghan national army that are capable operating independently. as we continue to transition regions of afghanistan back to host nation control, what is the state of the remaining units that are attempting to achieve this high a rating level? >> i yield to admiral mullen who

has worked directly with this issue, but my understanding now is that the number of units that have that capability has gone up dramatically. what i have seen, both in the trips i have taken there and listening to general allen is that there are more and more units that are operational, able to go into battle, able to conduct the kind of operations that have to be conducted in order to defeat the taliban. it has taken a lot of training and work, but we are seeing units that are increasingly capable of engaging in battle. if we are going to be able to make this transition, we have to make sure that all of the units have that capability. >> over 70% of the police units are rated in the top three proficiency levels. 90% of the overall ansf units

are partners withisaf, and the ansf lead occurs in about 60% of our operations. that is a far cry from where we were 12 months or 18 months ago. i don't want to overstate this, there is a lot of hard work left, but in this area in particular, it has been extremely successful over the course of the last year and a half, and we look for that to continue. we see nothing that gets in the way of them continuing to take the lead, become more proficient, so they can have the lead throughout the country by the end of 2014. >> the joint ied's of the organization was created in 2006 to reduce or eliminate all forms of improvised explosive devices used against the u.s. and

coalition forces. what is your overall assessment of how the organization is achieving its three-part mission to attack the network and defeat the device and train the force? >> i think the joint ied's force organization has been an enormous success. i am not unaware of the amount of investment that has taken. what strikes me is when it was set up an heavily focused on iraq, it had an enormous impact across all three of those missions that. first of all, it has been -- it is currently being led by someone who has been in the fight. as we shift to the main effort to afghanistan, the itt threat is still extremely difficult, and yet the enemy shifting more and more to these spectacular

attacks on the one hand, and to a very heavy focus on ied' implants. we have needed this organization to be in touch with the fight and to be able to respond as rapidly as weekend. backlit, i appreciate the efforts on the part of many here in the senate. center k.c. leading the effort to continue to put pressure on the ammonium nitrate peace in pakistan so we can cut that down as rapidly as possible. there is a view that we should integrate this into our overall organization. i am not there yet. i think we need to wait until it is much more obvious that we fully integrate the joint ied' organization. in a big bureaucracy, that can bring an outfit to parade rest or elimination, and it is too vital to do that at this time.

>> admiral mullen, you are an outstanding leader and have served your country with honor over the last four decades. in your view, aside from budgetary issues, what do you see as the biggest challenge facing our military in the future? >> when people ask me about the future, as we look in the discussions we are hearing right now, i think if we are able to retain the right people, take care of our families, reset this force, we are the most combat experience force in our history, and that we not hollow it out. maybe best summarized by, we may be the best threat to ourselves if we don't get this right. it would keep the people right -- that does not mean keep all the people. if we are able to ensure that

this best ports i have ever seen in my life days s --tays whole at whatever size and is supported, we can address whatever threats are out there and provide the military capabilities and provide for the vital national interest. it may be that in the budget world, our care has to be so precise that we don't break faith with our people. if we get that right, i think will be okay for the future. >> thank you very much, admiral mullen, and thank you for your service. my best to you and your family in the future. >> i want to thank both of you for being here today, and admiral mullen, obviously we will miss having you before this committee. thank you so much for your decades of service to our country.

i wanted to ask you about -- director clapper testified last week before the house senate intelligence committee that the real engagement rate from those released from guantanamo bay is at an all-time high, 27%, which means that out of the 599 detainees who have been repatriated from guantanamo, there are 161 of them who we have either confirmed or suspected of real engaging r j.eengaging in in certain activities that obviously put our troops in danger, further undermine security in areas where fighting, and are threats to the american people. i would ask both of you, at this point, would you agree with me that that reengagement rate is

unacceptable? >> there is no question that we cannot allow that to happen, where you release individuals that immediately go back into the battle and start killing our forces. one of the protections is that any kind of transfer that is made, i have to certify that the country that excess that transfer has taken all the precautions necessary to ensure that that does not happen. i have not done any of that to this point as secretary, but you can be assured i will not certify unless i am sure that is going to happen. >> can have your assurances -- you just said you will not allow someone to be transferred from guantanamo to another country, unless you can be assured they are not going to be engaged back in the battle to harm us. >> that is correct. >> i appreciate that. one of the issues i would ask both of you about is if

tomorrow we capture a high value terrorist outside of iraq and afghanistan, where do we put them? assuming we want to interrogate and detain, assuming we continue to have security concerns about them if it were to immediately release them or put them in some other country. >> the approach now in dealing with that is very much looking at a case by case approach. we did it recently with a terrorist we located and captured. we were able to gather regular intelligence from him. as we developed that case, there was a decision made that he could be prosecuted in the courts, so he was transferred for the purpose of being prosecuted. with regard to the issue of

ability to detain individuals under the law of war provision, that is an area that i think we need to work with congress to decide how we do that. the answers to that are not very good right now. >> i would agree with you. i think we need a long-term detention policy. right now, would you both agree with me, there is not an alternative to guantanamo that exists right now? >> first of all, i agree with the thrust of what you are saying. there is not a military commander out there that wants to see any back project back, and the return rate is far too high. secretary panetta as well, none of us want to see that happen. we do need a long-term detention policy. the wasami case is instructive. we kept him at sea for a while. that has limits. don't want your navy tied up.

moving in that direction, there is a way to keep him, and he is being kept right now, having gotten to the point where he can be prosecuted. it is a very hard problem that from my perspective is going to take everybody getting together. it has been very contentious. we understand all that, but without that, it has given us this return rate, and it puts people on the ground who are in the fight in a pretty tough spot. >> when you talk about this situation, we cannot do that with every single individual, put them on a ship, in terms of practical reality. >> not really. >> i think we will need more ships if we are going to do that. >> one of the concerns i have that brings me to this is,

attorney general holder pledged this week that the administration would close guantanamo bay prior to the 2012 presidential election. my concerns about his comments are that, hearing what you have said and what our military leaders have said before this committee, right now we don't have an alternative and we have a recidivism rate that is unacceptable. i think it is very important that we not put political considerations ahead of making sure that these individuals get back in theater to further warm our troops and individuals. >> the president is very intense and closing guantanamo and not adding to the guantanamo population. at the same time, congress has

made very clear that there is no other place we are going to be able to put these individuals for legislation of one kind or another. we have to be able to resolve that for the benefit of this country and i would hope that working together with the congress, we can find a way to deal with these conflicts. >> i hope so, too. i firmly believe we should keep guantanamo open. i think it is a top rate detention facility. i have been there, and i think that is the best way to move forward. i am hopeful we will resolve this, because it must make our troops so angry when they come across someone we have had released and they are again confronting them. i want ask you about iran, in particular iran's influence on iraq right now. admiral mullen, how would you describe iran does the activities in southern iraq, and

is iran providing weapons to shiite militias in iraq that are in turn attacking our troops? how much is iran contributing to increased violence in iraq? >> over the summer, there was a significant spike. to what the secretary said earlier with respect to iran supporting two shia extremist groups. they have control over that period we went by several channels, but iraq went to iran and stopped. there is no question that iran can control this, and it is a very dangerous potential. irams are getting bigger and bigger, and there is a great downside potential for

destabilizing, particularly southern iraq. in that regard, on one hand it is clear that if they want to do it, they can do it. they have been warned about continuing its, consistent with what the secretary has said about the hakkani network, that if they keep killing our troops, that will not be something we would just sit idly by and watch. >> my time is up, but i would appreciate your answer and i suggest also that as we look at troop levels, it is in our national security interest with this -- with respect to iran that we have a government in iraq that is independent of iran and we do not allow iraq to be in a situation where iran has a greater influence than we would

want them to, given our posture towards iran, are concerns about iran. i am hopeful we will take that into consideration and make sure we have enough troops to secure iraq. thank you. >> senator mccaskill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we also like a broken record, but you are the real deal, admiral mullen. your family has been terrific. i have not always liked every answer you have given, but i never doubted for a minute you are giving the absolutely most honest assessment of any question that was being put your way. that is all we can ask for as the united states senate is that kind of forthright -- this is not all easy. i want to talk about sustainability. i think it is something that as we have developed as the

strongest military in the world, counterinsurgency strategies -- i think the military has done a good job of figuring out how we worked with a counterinsurgency situation, but i am not sure that we focused enough on sustainability. we have been the afghanistan has without our help somewhere between $2,000,000,000.- 1294967773 dollars gdp. they are now getting $16 billion a year in gdp because of foreign aid. there are two parts of sustainability one is what we are doing for their armed forces, and what we are doing for infrastructure. i have yet to have anybody explain to me how they afford the army we are building for them. they cannot afford it. they cannot afford to pay for the army we are building for them. we built a university for their

military that will cost $40 million a year just to maintain and operate an their gdp without all the foreign aid is not going to be sufficient to even operate that. before either of you respond, the other part is the infrastructure. i need to know who did this sustainability analysis on the kabul power plant. how do we spend $300 million of taxpayer money for a power plant that they cannot afford to operate now, even with the $16 billion gdp that they have with our aid. it is sitting there as a $300 million generator that is used every once in awhile when there is a problem with the electricity they are buying. i don't remember which one of the stands, but they are buying

electricity at a much cheaper cost than it will be to operate the power plant built for them. i am very worried that we are throwing money at something that is just not sustainable. that is the ultimate insult to the men and women who have risked their lives. >> we talked about this earlier, senator mccaskill. this is a critical issue that we understand, and there is a lot of detail work going on right now, and is not finished. it is not something i could say here is the answer, but we recognize that $12 billion a year is not anything close. it has to be a% of a less at best to be ordered to sustain it and it also needs to be shared. this is not just the u.s. burden in the long run. it needs to be shared with other partners from an international

perspective. but don in no way that allows them to provide security. we just got them to a point where we started to build them up. your questions are valid. we are asking them of our cells from an infrastructure standpoint, but i also don't associate their gdp this year with that is what is going to be forever as well. there is an opportunity to develop. it is an open question. the government afghanistan is starting to understand it to some degree. we will not have answers are the next couple of months, but over the next 18 to 24 months, we will know a lot more about that. questions like the one you raised will have a better perspective on it. i don't know enough about it. i will have to get back to you on the electric plan, but it is the same kind of question.

the president has task us with looking at the infrastructure piece of this along the lines of what you are talking about. not just the military, but the state department and other agencies as well. >> secretary panetta, we have spent $70 billion in afghanistan just on reconstruction and development. that is not any of our ongoing training of the military, none of our military operations on the ground. i really do think it is important that you require -- both your replacement and you require senior leadership of all of our military and the pentagon to read the war commission's summary report. it is an eye opening piece of work, done by very credible and bipartisan organization made up

of a lot of expertise. the report has just come out, and it is really frustrating when you realize how fast and loose and sloppy we have played with so much of this money. i need to know right now is making the decisions on the $400hundred dollars --440 million. i remember being described to me when i first came to this committee as money that would be used to fix broken windows and storefronts. we are now up to multiple billions of dollars, and for the first time we actually have an iraq reconstruction fund as part of the defense budget. i don't know what the thought process was. but i don't like is it gives

everyone the opportunity to blur the lines between state a,.i.d., and the pentagon as far as who is in charge of this reconstruction, and who is making the decision as to whether there is security that is adequate enough for us to invest taxpayer dollars in these various infrastructure projects. i am not confident about the process of approval -- of approval. clearly some of that things have been a giant waste of money. >> i don't disagree with anything he said. my job is to try to make sure that we take a hard look at all of those issues, because frankly, based on the budget constrictions we are facing, we simply cannot afford to operate that way. we have to go back and look at these infrastructure issues. we have to look at every area to determine exactly what is

needed. are we doing this right? it is something we simply don't have to do? for example, the whole issue of sustainability of the force. in looking at what is now an unacceptable cost of about $12 billion a year, they have been able by virtue of looking at infrastructure -- we don't have to build a level of infrastructure in afghanistan that we build here in this country. we can find savings there and in other areas to try to reduce those costs. we will have to implement much better discipline in order to make sure that we not only are accountable to you, but to the american people prick >> i want to make sure we circled back and make sure that the infrastructure investments we have made -- i hope someone is task to going back to iraq and

trying to document what difference it made in the success or failure of our mission. we should not hold on to the notion that we have to spend huge amount on building schools and health centers and hospitals and roads and power plants that the american people have to spend a lot of money on under the rubric of counterinsurgency. i just want to make sure that strategy has been borne out as successful, and frankly i have not seen that documentation yet. >> we can certainly do the work. from my perspective, when i go back to the origins of cert, and while there certainly were birds projects there were more expensive than others, the vast majority of it in that timeframe was turned to enable young soldiers in the field -- it was

not just windows in store fronts, it was a lot of other things are really did make a difference. while it may not be documented to the degree that we need to, there is no question in my mind that it was significant in turning the tide and getting iraq to where we are right now. some of the bigger projects, we can certainly take a look at. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator collins. >> secretary panetta, first let me thank you for your very forthright comments on the dangers of excessive budget cuts. i, too, am very concerned about the possibility of a sequester. i think it would be the height of irresponsibility for congress to allow that kind indiscriminate, automatic cuts to take place, particularly

so disproportionately attacks the department of defense. that is just wrong. troubled me when it was included in the debt package, and i had a hard time deciding to vote for the package because of it. i very much appreciate your putting this committee on notice about how devastating it would become aware that to go into effect. i just wanted to begin by thanking you for that. admiral mullen, i also would be remiss if i did not thank you for your more than 40 years of service. it has been such a great pleasure to work with you, not only in your current position, but when you were chief of naval operations. i appreciate all that you have done for our neighbor -- our navy, for our country, and for working with us in such a

collaborative way. you have been an extraordinary leader, and we will issue both. i want to follow up on the issue of iranian influence in iraq. i am very concerned that with the recall of our forces and the shrinking of our civilian presence as well, that we are creating a vacuum around -- a vacuum that iran is rushing to fill. we have seen a sadeq -- we have seen a steady increase in flow of money and arms and training to the shiite militia, particularly in southern iraq. my fear is that there will be some in iraq who will use those strengthens militias to exert power and seek to effect change

outside of the newly established political channels, especially in southern iraq. admiral mullen, i will start with you. what concrete steps are we taking to counter that maligned iranian influence in iraq? i know we have made it clear verbally that it is not acceptable, both of you have, but what are we doing about it? what can we do about it? >> i talked about the political channel for temporary effect. that temporary effect is still in place, shut it down significantly from where it was back in the summer. general austin is not sitting back at all in terms of his operations, and actually our support for iraqi security forces in these operations.

along the lines of what you talk about, sadr and his group are not insignificant, but they are out liars. this is something from the standpoint of this is an area you wanti think the political leadership, and i know the prime minister understands this. i get the vacuum peace, but at some point in time, iraq has got to take charge of its own. iran is not going away. they have had influence there forever. over the course of my time in the region, which started in the early 1980's, there is an understanding of to a point, but in some point in time, the

iraqis say, that is enough. having fought for what they fought for, i find it hard to believe that they are going to sacrifice their sovereignty to this country. the backgrounds are deep and very contentious historically. iraq has to take concrete steps and they are taking some. they are clearly consumed in political battles to figure out how they will move forward here. to include that kind of balanced, in the end, and i do not know if it is next year or the year after that, they are born to have to figure that out. that is part of what needs to be tied to the strategic relationship we have that they know we are not going anywhere. we are going to be there with them. in support. we certainly want to continue to push back on iran in every single way, not just what they are doing in iraq.

>> when i last went to iraq, it was right in the middle of these iran provided. we were taking heavy cattle to is because of that. that is unacceptable. we actually did have some encouraging results. the prime minister was concerned. he indicated that concern. it importantly, his national security adviser and he made clear to iran that that had to stop. that was an important message to the eye iranians. the iraqis conducted operations against those groups as well. to make clear that we were not going to give them a free license to conduct those kinds of attacks. the combination of that did result in a hiatus in terms of what was taking place. we do not assume, and general

austin has made clear that this is a temporary thing and that iran is going to try to come back and do the same thing. the prime minister -- i think he understands that his country cannot allow iran to be able to conduct the kind of influence within his country, provide those kinds of weapons, and undermine his government. that is what is happening. i think he gets that message. we are going to have to continue to make sure that they take the right steps and i think iran needs to understand that we are going to be around a while here. making very clear to them that we are not simply going to ignore what iran is doing in iraq. >> another troubling player which all of us have discussed is pakistan. providing safe haven and

undermining the efforts in afghanistan. senator gramm and i are both on the appropriations committee. last night, we met late and approved the foreign operations bill that places several conditions and restrictions on the pakistan counterinsurgency capabilities fund. one of them is that the secretary of state must certify and -- must certify if pakistan is cooperating with terrorist groups. do you support putting that kind of restriction on our assistance to pakistan? >> i am going to let the state department reply to you directly. as far as i am concerned, anything that makes clear to them that we cannot tolerate

their providing this safe-haven to the terrorists, any signal we can send to them, it is important to do. >> thank you. i had a feeling you might defer to state on that. i do think it is really important. the best way to send a strong message is to start conditioning the funding. admiral mullen, a successful transition in afghanistan depends in part on the afghan forces' willingness and motivation to fight for their own country. you have told me before that the afghans are fierce fighters. i have heard that from troops on the front lines as well. but attrition in the afghan national security forces continues to run very high, as much as 32% per year.

between january and june of this year, there were more than 24,000 afghan soldiers who went awol. what troubles me is that is more than twice as many as for the same period one year ago. to me, that does not represent progress to rid the department of defense has noted in its most recent report that levels of attrition seen throughout the last five months continue, there will be significant resist -- there'll be significant risk to growth. what efforts have been undertaken to increase the long- term commitment among afghans? after all, as with iraq, ultimately, both of these countries' citizens are going to have to take responsibility for their own security. >> it was not long ago that we

had those kind of numbers and percent in the police as well. i know, on the army side, this is an issue that general allen, general caldwell, and command addresses regularly. some of it is tied to how we pay them. it still is, as you described, it is a significant issue that is approaching about 30% per year. we do find an awful lot of afghan soldiers who want to be there and to want to -- and who want to provide for their country. we need to continue to work this. it is a huge priority. the minister of defense, who is

my counterpart there, continues to work very specifically to reduce this. we do not have all of the answers. to your point, clearly it is a significant risk factor in the overall strategy. at least, i have not seen nor has any commander told me that it puts the strategy at risk. it is significant but it is something we think we can continue to address overtime. >> thank you both. >> gentleman, i know it has been one of those mornings on capitol hill where we have a lot happening. that is the importance of this testimony today. every member of the committee has found time to come and ask questions and engage in dialogue with you. admiral, in your testimony you said that we need to reframe our

relationship with pakistan. i want to build on senator collins' line of questioning with a focus on how sanctions or reductions to military aid to pakistan might hinder our mission in afghanistan. more broadly, i would like you to comment on how we frame their relationship with pakistan. >> we have indicated, with regards to assistance to pakistan that it is conditioned on several things that we have got to pay attention to. number one, are they cooperating with regards to going after our targets in al qaeda and the remaining targets. in my prior position, we identified a series of those targets that remain. we asked for their cooperation to go after them. second, whether or not they're going to take action with

regards to safe haven. dealing with the terrorists. that is another area in which we have got to say, "you have got to take steps to be able to stop that from happening." thirdly, we would like for them to continue efforts to go after the terrorists that are threatening them. they did, to their credit, took action and took a lot of casualties. i commend them for the action that they did. frankly, they have got to continue the pressure on the terrorists. i have made clear to them that terrorism is as much a threat to them as it is to the united states. it is very important that they cannot choose between terrorists. if you are against terrorism, you are against all terrorists.

that is something we have got to make clear to them time and time again. >> i would try to expand the discussion beyond -- it has got to be where the secretary mentioned in terms of included in the framework. i went to pakistan in 2008. one of the things i addressed, the political and military leadership, along with the deputy of the cia, i believe the isi has got to shift its focus. they are the ones to implement, as part of government policy, the support of extremists. we have also had our challenges with l.e.t., an organization

that put in place. in a lot of ways, it is a proxy here. because of where they live, that has got to a fundamental shift. there has to be enough patience on both sides. they will probably be the last ones to shift. how quickly that can be done is an open question. we need to listen to them. this is a country that is generally in decline. although their financial situation is better now than it was one year ago. so much of it focuses on how their economy is doing. is there a way to open up their markets as they look out to the future? would they like to get afghanistan settle? i believe that kashmir on locks the whole reason -- unlocks the whole region. there has got to be pressure

brought to bear on that problem as well. one of the things i think constantly is their number one crop is cotton. they cannot market that here for lots of reasons. so much of it is far beyond the security issue. they have 2000 detainees in swat. they have no place to put them. there is a whole rule of law peace here. there is a chairman of corruption in this country that needs to sign off on corruption charges accurate it is a terribly corrupt country in many ways. that share has been vacant for the last 18 months. there are a series of things that i think we need to look at. it will take some patience. it will not be solved overnight. i think we need to broaden it to include the security issues, the

support. and they have supported us to significantly impact al qaeda. they are choosy about which terrorists they support with us and the ones that will not support. >> thank you for that comprehensive overview. it strikes me, and i would not want to pin the two of you down, but there are times when pakistan and its leadership are playing the role of both arsonist and farmland. that is problematic. i think when you consider it, it would still be on behalf of the congress. in the time i have remaining, let me move to reports of fraud, waste, and abuse in contracts in afghanistan. it is estimated at least $31

billion has been lost to fraud and waste. it is not acceptable and certainly not while we are in tough times. at the same time, i think we have got to be careful in putting in place more oversight -- careful that putting in place more oversight does not bogged down projects in place a. what steps are we going to take to ensure tax dollars are not squandered by contractors? >> there were some pretty good recommendations in that report. i have asked our people to implement those recommendations. i think the key here is that, without burdening the operation with additional bureaucracy, the fact is, in the contracts themselves, the developer contrast, that is the first point.

you put the right requirements in and do the immediate oversight at that point that assures you that this is being handled right. there are a series of other steps that they have recommended. michael is trying to put those into affects -- my goal is to put that into affect because that kind of waste, that kind of loss, is something that is intolerable. >> could i make one quick comment. when the general took over, he put in place a two-star in general who had not done this work in iraq to attack this issue. she came up with many good recommendations. those are being implemented against existing contracts. some contracts were canceled as a result of that because we recognize we are feeding the enemy into many places.

we also, and the department of the last many years, dramatically increased the amount of contract oversight. contracts in our own department to put into place people to oversee it. we all realize this is something we have got to improve on. we are feeding the fight against us. we are trying to do that as rapidly as we can. >> that is the worst kind of twofer. tax dollars being squandered and going to our enemy. >> i have asked that they look at that to determine whether some of that can be regained. i doubt it but it is worth a shot. >> maybe admiral mullen can take that on in retirement. thank you for your tremendous

service. we all wish to the very best. i think it is a tribute to you -- you do not like to hear his expressions of gratitude but we will keep them coming your way regardless of your sentiment. thank you very much. >> thank you both for your service. i apologize if i go over questions the other members have asked when i was absent. admiral, what advice would you give us as to the right number of u.s. troops to keep in iraq next year? >> i believe, and this is in the training peace, i believe it is tied to the mission. first of all, assuming there is a number, first and foremost, we have got to be able to protect ourselves.

we cannot put anybody in a position that is not able, whatever our mission, to protect themselves. i am confident that is well understood. secondly, we are in the middle of negotiations right now. honestly, in the end, i believe, and we have been working with the iraqi military for a significant period of time, so we think we understand where the gaps are, the iraq military understands where the gaps are. in the end, it is going to be something that the prime minister and political leadership make a decision on, not tied not just do the training mission, but also that there is a department of state mission here. as we move to normalize and put a relatively significant mission under the state umbrella as well.

we have done a lot of analysis on this. we have covered this extraordinarily well. it really depends on the mission. that has not been determined yet. >> let's take parts of that at the -- at a time. what is the minimum number you would require for them to protect themselves? that is where you start. >> how much training and my going to do, who is going to do it? assuming we are going to do this, where is it going to exist? it depends on where it is in the country. it is different west and north or south or in baghdad. i know that you and others would love to get a number out there. honestly, it is just not determined yet. it really does depend on what we are going to do and where we are

going to do it and how often we are going to do it. >> i guess i am a little frustrated, because on our side, we are part of the political leadership. i am asking for that advice as we have that discussion. >> secretary panetta said earlier, and it is important that when we get to that point, i probably will not be here, but we will consult with congress when we get to that point. honestly, we are just not there yet. >> we are having circular conversations about this. that we do not know what is going on in baghdad. >> to both of you, we talked a lot about a new approach to pakistan in a pretty broad discussion. it seems like we do not have a clearly defined new approach and

that is because it is a difficult issue. i am not suggesting it is an easy thing. but it seems very important to me that we come up with a clearly defined approach and clearly laid that out. i think that is important for the pakistan the government and for the american people to have confidence that we are not just moving along and being taken advantage of. when the think and how do you think we will lay out that clear, a new approach? >> i think it has already happened. the pakistanis, as we all understand, this is a complicated relationship. on one hand, it is necessary because we are fighting a war there. we are trying to defend our country. they do give us some cooperation in that effort. just recently, they helped us with a guy who was a terrorist

who they helped capture. they have given us other areas of cooperation. at the same time, we know what these problems are when they allow safe haven to take place for forces that attack our people. the most important thing is that the united states and congress, we all have to speak with one voice, one clear voice, to the pakistanis that makes clear that we cannot tolerate their having this kind of safe havens. we cannot tolerate terrorists coming across the border, attacking our forces, killing our forces, and escaping back into the safe haven. that is not tolerable. they are the first ones that ought to take action on that. my experience with the pakistanis is that, if everybody speaks with one voice, if we all convey the same message, admiral mullen has done that, the

director has done that with general pasha, i have done that with my counterparts. send a clear message that this is unacceptable. the more we keep the pressure on them, the more they understand they have got to do something about it. that is the nature of the relationship. sometimes it is not satisfied, but sometimes the only way to deal with the pakistanis is to keep giving them a clear message where the lines are. >> i agree with all of that. i agree with speaking with one voice. has it been articulated about what the consequences of their not changing in those ways are? >> i have made very clear that we will do everything necessary to protect our forces. i have not spell that out for them, but i would be very surprised if they were surprised by what we did to fulfill that commitment. >> what about in terms of aid to

the pakistani government? >> i like the term that senator collins used. it needs to be conditioned. i think we need to be careful about definitions and terms here because if they are too broad, they could be lots of things. did they make progress or didn't they make progress? i have been there 27 times and have met multiple times with their leaders. it is an enormously complex problem. the strategic way to approach this, from my perspective, secretary panetta and secretary gates, secretary clinton, the president, the vice president, terribly talented people for not just our country, for a long

time. we need to continue to stay engaged. i do not know where the breakthrough is going to take place, but i think we can get be thered we need to when the light goes on. if we are not, i think it is a very dangerous long-term outcome should we cut it off. we have got to be careful about conditioning and yet, it is a lot of money and this is a two- way street. >> let me stand on how began this line of questioning, which is i think a new approach to pakistan needs more definition, at least for the american people. maybe it has been more clearly defined in private discussions with them. i do not know. i think it needs more definition for purposes of our continuing to support any engagement. i would encourage that because i

do not think it is clearly defined, even among members, but much less the american people. thank you. >> thank you. admiral mullen, congratulations on a most successful career. i look forward to next career of service. i do not think you are ready to retire. >> oh yes i am. [laughter] >> secretary panetta, i have the utmost respect and confidence for you. i feel comfortable with you coming in and this new venture of yours. i look for too much success. with that, i want to make a statement. i think you all probably know my feelings about what is going on and how i feel about the engagements we have.

it is my belief that we should be rebuilding america, not afghanistan or iraq. today, with our nation facing a stagnant economy and debt, i do not believe that we can pretend that we have it all. we need to choose what we can and cannot afford to do. we must make a choice, whether it is to spend hundreds of billions to restore our nation or build other nations as our own. some believe that making either choice will weaken our security. i do not believe that. admiral mullen, you said that is the greatest threat to national security if we do not adjust our fiscal bounces in the low -- in the near term. sustained influence could be great. this nation could not, in good conscience is, cut programs at home or call on americans to

spend more taxes for afghanistan, which is estimated to cost $485 billion over the next decade. we are at a crossroads in our nation's history. i think everyone of us in congress, the president, and the secretary yourself, we all have choices to make. i will not ask americans to pay to rebuild another nation. i have simply said that i choose to rebuild america. i want to share with you a few of the facts and insights that have helped reform my opinion that we must, for the good of our nation and our national security, fundamentally shift from the present strategy in afghanistan to a pure mission of counter-terrorism. i will be specific for the record. at a current rate of deficit spending, crs projects our national debt will exceed $23.10

trillion. we will spend more on interest on our debt than defense, education, and energy combined. at the same time, the afghan economy is growing at leaps and bounds while our economy stagnates. tax dollars are funding the afghan economy. their gdp growth rate was 24% in fiscal year 2009-2010. while the united states growth was 2.2%. growth, afghanistan's rate was 8.2%, while our growth rate was only 1.6%. this might be worthwhile if we were building a stable and self- sufficient afghanistan. instead, the world bank reports that afghan imports and exports have declined for the last four

years. domestic revenue has funded only 9% of public expenditures from 2006-2010. this is not an economy that can function on its own. it is entirely fueled by american tax dollars. in the coming days and weeks, we will engage in endless fights whether we could and should be investing $50 billion more to rebuild american transportation infrastructure, funding that i support. but we could have already paid for that and more with the $72.7 billion we have already invested to build afghanistan infrastructure since 2002. not to mention the billions more we are projected to spend in the years ahead. we would debate how to pay for the millions needed to modernize american schools while the commission on wartime contract in estimates that 30-$60 billion have been wasted on corruption

in iraq and afghanistan. that could pay for all the school modernization that the president has proposed that i support. perhaps the greatest insult of all is that in spite of the blood and treasure that we have invested in afghanistan, we are still not the preferred partner of future economic growth projects. in 2007, the state-owned china metallurgical group corp. won a contract to develop the copper deposits. this deposit may yield up to $88 billion of copper. to my knowledge, china does not have one boot on the ground and has not contributed one penny to the security of afghanistan. instead, we are directly and indirectly helping china profit while we lose our great men and women fighting to keep afghanistan safe.

secretary panetta, as i have said, i have great respect for you and for your service, admiral mullen. i know that this is a new challenge for you, secretary panetta. i hope that you take these concerns to heart. i am truly sincere about what i believe, what i have said. i have given a great thought and research it the best i have -- i am able. to come up with the conclusion that i have come up with that we should get out as quickly as we can. go and fight terrorism anywhere and everywhere. i think the american people would be behind this. but i do not believe we can live and change the afghans or the iraqis or the pakistanis from what they believe in. with that said, i hope that we really do prevent that from happening here. we will support that effort. with that, i have a statement for that if your people would

like to respond to that. if either one of you want to, you are more than welcome. >> senator, you have shared those views with me before. i understand your concerns. i think all of us, as the admiral has expressed, are concerned about the economic situation in this country and that it is a threat to our national security. we have got to pay attention to it. at the same time, it is important that, if we are to protect this country, protect our economy and people, that we also have to be able to respond to those threats to our national security. it would not be who lost -- it would not behoove us to focus on

economic challenges without national security as well. the reality is that, up from 911 , we just celebrated the anniversary, we were attacked. we had a responsibility to respond to that. what we have to do now is to make sure that places like afghanistan and pakistan do not become safe havens so that al qaeda can plan those kinds of its us -- can plan those types of attacks against the united states. that is the mission here. i know there are differences as to why we got into it. i know there are differences that are there as to how a lot of this has been conducted, but i want to tell you that i think

all of the efforts and all of the blood that has been spilled, that we have made important progress here. with regard to terrorism, we have seriously weakened al qaeda and their ability to conduct the same attacks. with regard to iraq and afghanistan, we turned a corner on the process of beginning to drawdown in iraq. we are in the process of drawing down in afghanistan. we are on the right path in both places towards having a stable government in both areas that can both secure and govern themselves. it is going to take work. it is going to take commitment. i understand there has been waste, i understand that mistakes have been made. i also believe that this is a point where the united states has got to stick with it and not just walk away from those

responsibilities, largely because the last thing we should do is to say to those families who have lost loved ones that somehow all of this was in vain. the most important thing we can do to pay tribute to those who have lost their lives is to make this right. >> my time is expired. i support the war on terror wherever it may take us, i just do not think at the expense of the united states, when we have our infrastructure crumbling, that we should build it there especially when it does not create an advantage with all the sacrifices we are making. let's take the war on terror wherever it may go. we will punish injustice wherever it may be. last secretary panetta's

point, we have to be awful on how we withdraw. that against the price that has been paid. what does that mean for the future of the health of our force and that sacrifice? lastly, i was in iraq two months ago flying over baghdad at night and i had a couple of soldiers with me who had fought, lost colleagues, troops that they care deeply about. it looked like the lights at night, it almost looked like las vegas. more importantly, they saw traffic on the streets. they had never seen traffic on the streets in baghdad at night. it is a different place. when i took this job, where at the height of the surge of discussion and debate. the despair about where this was going was enormous.

with no end in sight, and now the end is in sight. there is potential for 26 million people to lead a better life. i understand the investment. this is not about how we got here or what we got here. it is where we are right now. that is why the responsible movement here, over the next year or so or whatever it is, and the strategic partnership, and the opportunity we have and the part of the world to have a friend, is enormous. >> admiral mullen, when you look back at your time in the pentagon, i hope you feel very satisfied because it has been a tough tour of duty. you have had a lot -- we do not always agree, but there has been a lot of social changes in the military, a lot of change in the world. you have been consistent. you have told us what you think is best for the country, the

military. that is the best anybody can do. i am very proud of your service. i consider you a friend. to my friend from west virginia, i could not disagree with you more. if you do not see things different and iraq, you have not been lately. to those iraqis who have fought and died, god bless you. al qaeda is the biggest loser in iraq. they tried to take over and the iraqi people said no thank you. with our help, al qaeda was delivered a punishing blow in iraq. here was the guy that said we need to go into pakistan to get bin laden. god bless you. that was a hard decision. he took your advice and made a calculated risk. it was the most risky option with the highest payoff. to be secure, though we have to do more than just kill

terrorists in the war on terror. here is my construct. it is great to isbin laden and -- great to kill bin laden and deter people from wanting to be him. i do not like the taliban anymore than you do. if people want to fight against the taliban, isn't it in their interest to help them. >> yes, sir. >> their relief 352,000 afghans in arms over the next year. >> that is correct. >> that makes me feel good knowing that those 352,000 will take the fight to the caliban. you talk about infrastructure crumbling at home. the world trade center crumbled. that infrastructure crumble

because of a place called afghanistan provided sanctuary to al qaeda and executed the whole attacks or less than $1 million. do you agree with me, secretary panetta, that if things continue to go right, the likelihood of afghanistan ever becoming a safe haven is very remote? >> that is correct. the whole point is to achieve stability so that never happens again. >> simply put, it is better to fight them and their backyard than having to do it all from home. .> yes th >> those who have served in iraq and afghanistan are changing the world. it is more costly and it takes time. the ultimate blow to this ideological movement called the war on terror is to have the good people over there fight

back and win. you know what? they want to fight back with our help. that is my two cents' worth. back at home, you're trying to go through the defense budget and take out of a substantial amount of money because we are broke as a nation. right? it is painful. you do it with a smile on your face. the defense budget should be on the table. the center from west virginia is right. we are broke. you do not become wealthy by allowing your enemies to grow in strength and come back and get you the second time a. we're going to put the defense budget under scrutiny. whether it is $400 billion, up $350 billion, it is going to be substantial over the next decade. triggers in the debt ceiling bill, are you familiar with them? >> yes. >> as i understand it, if this

super committee cannot find the $1.40 trillion that they are charged with finding over the next decade, there will be a trigger pulled to achieve that savings. $600 billion will come out of the defense department rid if we pull that trigger, would we be shooting ourselves in the foot? >> we would be shooting ourselves in the head. [laughter] >> it would be the dumbest thing. do you know what congress would do such a dumb thing? you do not have to answer that. i do not know either. that is the dumbest construct in the entire world, to try to find $650 billion in savings. to destroy the finest military in the history of the world. i am disappointed in my republican party for allowing that to be part of the puzzle. let's go to iraq.

you are not going to tell me the number. i understand why you are not going to tell me the number. we are going to talk about iraq in terms of our strategic interests. on a scale from 1-10, how important is it that iraq and well in terms of our national security? >> it is certainly 8 or above. >> let's look at it in terms of 8 or above. the resource and 4 and 8 or above situation should be robust, but reasonable. the general says we do not a much larger force. i agree. the iraqis need to take over, but they need our help. if you look at at -- if you look at the dispute as a possible failure in iraq, how would you

rate the risk? if you look at afghan security forces and half -- and american soldiers forming a new brigade or company, that construct is paying dividends, isn't it? >> yes, sir. >> what i would ask you to do when you look at the number of troops, to make sure that that fall line does not crack, because we have got a plan to integrate the afghan and iraqi security forces. we are the referee. over time, we are going to build a transition force that is going to be more stable. you said that to pass the capabilities and numbers, i agree with that. there is a time when numbers do matter. we are at the time now when capability matters. my point about 3000, and i know that is not the number. intelligence gathering -- what ability to the iraqis have to gather intelligence on their

own? compared to us? >> i would describe that as one of the gap areas that they clearly need to work on. it is not non, but is not an area they thrive on. i do not think we should make them boss. yes, they need to improve. >> we are having national security interests still in iraq, right? it is in our interest to know what is going on inside that country. when you look at intelligence gathering capabilities they do not have, and when you look at training and having a protection plan for our diplomats, the numbers begin to add up. all i am saying is, would you feel comfortable with a member of your family serving in a force of 3000?

>> i have confidence that, assuming there is a number, that force protection will be -- that our force protection will meet that need of whoever might be there. >> one last question -- secretary panetta, we have come up in the foreign relations markup with conditions and bad luck -- is conditions and benchmarks on pakistan. i want to send it to you and i want you to tell me if you think we are on the right track. you have informed pakistan that enough is enough. i believe we cannot trust them or abandon them. do you agree with that simple statement? >> i believe that is where we are. >> would you agree with me that if something does not change in pakistan substantially, that we are on a collision course with pakistan? >> it has got to change. we cannot continue the situation

that is there now. >> thank you both for your service. >> thank you all very much. secretary panetta and admiral mullen for being here this morning and for your endurance. hopefully this is the end. i want to echo all of my colleagues, admiral mullen, in expressing my deep appreciation for your leadership and service to the country. thank you. i would like to pick up from where senator gramm ended on pakistan. as you both pointed out, what happens in pakistan has a great deal to do with what happens in afghanistan. i had the opportunity to accompany the chairman to afghanistan. one of the things that we heard from our military leaders, when we were there, was the growing

influence of the terrorist network and the impact they were having because of not only their own operations but their support for the taliban and other terrorist groups in afghanistan and pakistan. my question is, admiral mullen, first to you, do you think that the general of the pakistan the leadership recognizes the threat that that terrorist group presents, not only to afghanistan and to our forces there, but also to their own internal security and to their own military? >> you said something very important. i think the secretary would agree with this. what we have seen over the course of the last several

years is the coming together of many of these terrorist organizations in ways that -- years ago, they did not like each other much at all. we have seen more of that. including recently, the attacks -- the attack on our embassy. that is worrisome. with respect to the future, it is clear that that network is embedded in pakistan, essentially a cross from its hosts. they are gesturing toward kabul and they want to own that. that is their goal. they also have, because of their relationship with other organizations, and internal threat that pakistan is trying to deal with. in fact, they have sacrificed a great deal. lost lots of soldiers and

citizens. that is a priority for the general and his leadership. he has 150,000 troops deployed in the west. he cannot sustain that. he cannot rotate. not many of them have been able to rotate out over the last several years. we need to recognize there has been plenty of sacrifice their. for the general, that group is a tough group. they have not been willing to take them on militarily. there is concern about the ability to do that. that is why this emphasis is so important. in the end, it will be the strategic leadership of the terrorist network, not the troops on the ground, that can affect this change. i think the risk is very high. over the course of the next years, i think the biggest fight will be in the east, enabled by us and afghan security forces and coalition forces more than anyplace else. the south is not problematic but

we are in a much better place than we were a couple of years ago. it will be the least, in the end, that answers this from a security standpoint. we have not talked about the taliban. they have not gone away. that is part of this we need to work with the pakistanis to help address. we do give them cooperation there as well. it is a mixed bag in terms of their overall support. in ways, they have helped us, in other ways, they have not. >> thank you. i was not aware until we had our meetings in pakistan, of the extent to which they still had troops fighting the terrorists within pakistan and the amount of casualty's both civilian and within the military that they have already endured.

i think it is important to point that out. we also visited the east while you're there. are you confident that we have enough troops and a strategy on the ground there that can address the growing influence of that terrorist network and the trail that goes back and forth between pakistan and afghanistan in that region? >> one of the things that our general did when he was there was to set up this layered defense. it is a much tougher spot, a tougher fight, for them than it was a couple of years ago. we have a new commander and we just talked about a new team there as well as general allan. it is an exceptionally strong team. i look for a positive outcome

because of that team. and a positive trend. general allan is looking at how to finish this fight and, based on the results, most of us expect he will have to redistribute forces in the east from the south. before next year. the specifics of that he is working his way through. my expectation is there will be some net increase in the east not coming from outside of the country but from inside the country as things have gotten better in the south and he looks to take on the east in the next couple of years to. >> i appreciate your mentioning the new team there. they were very impressive. i think both of you also mentioned in the confluence of india and their impact in the region. one of the things that we heard from the leadership and pakistan was their efforts to -- their

overtures to try to reduce tensions with india. how much of that do you think is real and has the potential to have a real impact and how much of it is for show and not going to have any real impact? >> i think israel. they are making an effort to try to see if they can find a way to resolve the issues between pakistan and india. they have made efforts like that. what has got to happen is they have to make this a higher priority. they have got to really focus on this. in terms of the security of pakistan, if they could find a way to resolve their differences with india, the country would be

a different country. to achieve that, i really do think that they have to put a much larger effort into trying to resolve those differences with india. they cannot meet one day and wait a long time to come together. it has got to be constant. that is something they are not doing right now. >> my time has expired. one final thing on how receptive do you think india is to those kind of overtures? >> india has in some ways resisted. both sides need to roll up their sleeves and get to work on this. it is tough, tough politically in both areas. in the end, we are never going to achieve stability in that region until the issues between pakistan and india are resolved. >> thank you both very much. at this time, we will close the

hearing. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> the joint chiefs of staff have agreed to remove the question regarding one's sexual orientation from future versions of the and this application. it will not be asked in the interim. >> this week marks the end of don't ask, don't tell, the policy that kept lesbian and gay personnel from serving in the military and more than 14,000 discharged service members can apply for reinstatement. all the history of don't ask, don't tell online to. all archived at the c-span video library. >> next, the c-span series "the contenders." in a moment, from