not give the college education you paid for, tonight ." c-span's "q&a >> good evening, and welcome to the third installment of c- span's "the contenders" series. tonight we look at the life of william jennings bryan, the three-time nominee from nebraska. what better way to introduce you to the man than by hearing directly from him. this is a speech he delivered at the democratic convention in 1896. this is commonly referred to as the "cross of gold" speech. it was from his first run at the white house. >> we do not come as aggressors. our goal is not a goal of conquest. we are fighting in defense of our families and prosperity. we have traditions and our

traditions have been scorned. our entreaties have been disregarded. we have begged and they have balked when our calamity came. we beg no more. we entreat no more. we petition no more. we brought forth confidence that we shall win. >> the words of william jennings bryan. we are coming to you from his home and office in the state capital of nebraska. it is commonly called fairview, because it gave you a fair view of the land. william jennings bryan and his wife moved here in 1902. we are coming to you from the first floor. his study is just below us.

he did much of his writing and entertaining here in this house. we welcome our guest, a professor of history at georgetown university. he also wrote "a godly hero." we're also joined by the chair of the department of history at the university of nebraska here in lincoln. thank you both for being with us. to set up this speech, the man that delivered it and the impact that it had on democratic delegates. >> the country was very divided. there was a great depression. the democrats were split down the middle. the incumbent president was very unpopular. as presidents usually are during a great depression. bryan comes into this convention as a dark horse candidate. everyone knows he is a wonderful orator. he is defending the cause of free silver. this is to help people in trouble economically. he gives this speech and people go wild when they hear it,

partly because he had a wonderful voice. this was actually recorded later. the technology did not exist to record his speech in 1896. he does not sound 36 in that. the speech was from 1896. he was robust, vigorous. he had an amazing voice. it could be heard without amplification by 10,000 people at a time. he has really stepped this up so he could give a speech at the time when he knew that the majority of delegates were for him but at the same time, no riveting speech had been given at that time. for the silver cause. he had found his moment and he used it to great effect. >> as you indicated, his words were recorded in 1923 but here is a race in which he was challenging william mckinley. he was relatively unknown. he served only two terms in the house of representatives. he ran for the senate.

he won the popular vote but lost because a republican legislature gave it to the republican candidate. >> it was a tumultuous time in american politics. there was a railroad strike that tore the country apart and revealed to americans just how unstable the economy was and how deep this depression might become. william jennings bryant ran as a democrat and a populist for the u.s. senate and ran against a railroad attorney named john thurston. he gained a lot of national attention with this senate campaign in 1984. -- 1894. he had a series of debates with john thurston they gave him great visibility. i would like to connect it to the lincoln-douglas debates. he had a series of debates and

this gave him great visibility across the nation. he emerged as a national figure at that time. the country was desperate for leadership. all of the parties were divided. the populists were on the scene. the republicans had won the presidential contest in nebraska in 1982. -- in 1892. the second place vote-getter was the populist. the democrat cleveland was far behind. the democratic party was in deep trouble in this part of the midwest. >> he is one of 14 presidential candidates who lost the election but changed american politics. from nebraska, more of the words from william jennings bryan. from his famous cross of gold speech. >> the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. we replied thatthe rest upon our broad and fertile prairies. burn down your cities and leave the farms, and your cities will spring up again as though by magic. destroy our farms and the grass

will grow in the streets of every city in the country. we care not what line the battle is fought. we replyengland has a gold standard. we will restore bimetallism. england has it because the united states has it. if they dared to come out and defend the gold standard, we will fight them to the uttermost. we have ubehind us the productie masses of the world. supported by the interest and the labor is everywhere, we will answer the demand for the gold standard. you shall not push down against labor this crown of thorns. you shall not crucify mankind

upon a cross of gold. >> how long was this speech in 1896? why was it referred to as the cross of gold? >> it was about 45 minutes long. this was a powerful metaphor for most people. william jennings bryan was a very serious evangelical christian. some wanted to keep the country on the gold standard. they wanted to restrict the supply of money. they wanted to keep interest rates high. for many people that supported him, this was a way to keeping the americans who were in debt deeper in debt. it was a way of keeping the british economy the supreme economy in the world. the british economy was based on the gold standard. it sounds like a technical issue but this is th haves against the have nots.

that is the way that bryan saw it. to crucify mankind on a cross of gold was connected to pontus pilate crucifying christ. in the same way, they thought that the american economy was run for the interest of those who already had property or money or banks. there was a real class divide at that time. now, we have a lot of anger about the economy but this is not focused the same way as it was then. every dollar that people had in their pockets could be redeemed for some gold, and silver as well. a lot more dollars could have

been coined because there was more silver in circulation. and there was more silver in circulation than there was gold. this was really a call for cheaper money, lower interest rates, and greater economic opportunity. >> you talk about his charisma and what he meant at that time. he essentially became a celebrity. he was receiving as many as 2000 letters a day. you also write about something that he did which was viewed as revolutionary which was campaigning for the office as opposed to the front porch strategy in ohio. >> they had a lot of money. mckinley had a lot of money. he was able to get checks from john a. rockefeller. other big industrialists could just write him checks. there was no restrictions on campaign donations. this was back in 1896. bryan could not get that kind of money. he had to go out and campaign

for himself. he could not depend on a large machine. he was a wonderful person and he loved to speak. for him, this was a positive thing. he made necessity a virtue. he traveled at least 18,000 miles. he had to go on passenger trains. he did not have his own railroad car for much of the campaign. he spoke as many as 6000 times in that campaign. many times a day. for him, this was an opportunity to become known. also the only chance he had to reach americans directly. >> he is the first campaigner to use the railroad in this way and campaign across the country. stephen douglas had done something similar in 1860. he was trying to take up a campaign swing throughout the south and through parts of the north.

for the most part, american presidential candidate sat on their front porch and other people campaigned for them. bryan campaigned at every town in illinois, ohio, virginia and traveled all over america bringing his campaign to the people. >> as always, we want to hear from you. we are in lincoln, nebraska. this is referred to as fairview. william jennings bryan and his wife moved here in 1902. let's take a step back. he ran for the house of representatives, and yet he was born in salem, illinois. walk us through the early years of william jennings bryan. how did he end up in nebraska? >> he was born in 1860 into a world that was being

transformed. the civil war that followed, 1862-1865. he was too young to serve in the civil war that followed, 1862-1865. he had not served in the military. many men in politics had served in the military. he did not have that opportunity. instead, he read for the bar and went into practice as a lawyer in lincoln, nebraska. he started his own law firm, a partnership. he practiced basic law in a growing urban environment. that is when he became active in politics. >> at the time and in many ways still, going to law school is good training to go into politics.

his father was a judge in illinois. his father had helped write the illinois state constitution. a very close associate of stephen douglas. really, politics was in his blood. he never thought of doing anything else but entering politics. he became a lawyer because he wanted to get involved in politics. he came to nebraska because he knew that the democratic party was very weak here. he thought there would be a good opportunity for a young man to rise quickly within the democratic party. >> let me go back to the way he was able to capture the imagination of the country. three times getting the democratic nomination. how do you receive the nomination and he lost all three times? >> henry clay received the nomination three times. twice for the whig party.

this was a little bit different 100 years ago. there were a lot more voters, and a lot more media. more money involved. clay had a pretty small country. america was not just a country, -- it was an industrial country by the early 20th century, so this was a modern campaign. it was a modern campaign in a way that clay's was not. >> as you write in your book, 14 million americans voted in that election. that was 80%. 80% of eligible voters cast their ballots. >> they voted in colorado. that is the highest percentage of eligible voters of any election from now until the present. we have never had that a high percentage of eligible voters again. >> can you touch on his senate bid in 1894? >> sure. he started out to get the

populist and democratic nomination. the populist was an insurgent movement in american politics rapidly rising. they had secured the house in nebraska. the irony of his 1894 senate campaign was that the republicans win the legislature and the democratic candidate actually wins the governorship. there was two debates, one in lincoln and one in omaha. 7000 people turned out for the debate in october of 1894. the debate in omaha. so this was a great political event for the public. bryan started out talking about the income tax.

this was an important issue. this is the first income-tax in 1894. bryan had been part of that. it was a 2% flat tax on anyone making more than $4,000 -- so on the rich, and they started his debate with john thurston on that issue. and then you went to the union pacific railroad and its monopoly power. the issue is down on the list in 1894. -- the silver issue was down on the list in 1894. it was not as significant as it would become in 1996. >> in 1895, the supreme court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. a radical thing for the highest court to do, to say congress passed a law, the president signed the law, but this law is not constitutional. this helped to enflame the things on bryan's side.

>> and the irony that in 1913, the signing of the 17th amendment did what? >> the direct election of senators. bryan is expecting to get elected. the republican majority elects john thurston to be the senator from nebraska. thurston becomes a national committee chair. bryan runs for president and gets the nomination and the man that he ran against was the republican committee chair for mckinley. >> does this home reflect william jennings bryan? >> it was considered quite nice for the time. was considered a mansion.

as you can see, it is well furnished. he made a lot of money speaking. it was a prize for his career. he worked here. he worked here with his wife. you'll see a double desk that they worked on together. that is important to mention about him. he and his wife were partners in his career. often true of political wives now, but you do not think that much about the 19th century. it was certainly true of them. >> we're joined by bob puschendorf. as with the nebraska state historical site team -- society. thank you very much for sharing your time. how did he use this, and how often -- how long was he in that study writing? >> he would have used that probably daily. the study was the heart of the home. as he said.

>> why don't you show us what the desk looked like? also some of the other artifacts that are on top of the desk. >> these are the partner desks that he and his wife shared. they would exchange conversation, they would compose writing and letters, and they would formulate some of the positions he would want to take. >> on the top of the desk, a copy of "the commoner." why was that significant? >> it can best be stated right in a quote in the first edition. "it would be to satisfy it by identity to the common people and proves to its right to the name which it has chosen."

what you have studied the man and his life. how is it reflected in his home that he moved into in 1892? >> how does this reflect him when he moved in in 1902? >> this reflects the life style of mr. bryan and their family. the most important thing came out of the restoration of this home was the role of his wife annette -- a representation in this office. >> the two sat directly across from each other and work on everything, correct? >> they certainly did. his wife was a beloved wife and helpmate. bryant said that. >> how much of the material there is original? >> very few of the pieces are original furnishings. these furnishings and this office have been collected to represent what was originally in the room based on some very fine photographs. >> he was seated in that chair,

adjacent to you. would he feel comfortable, would it feel like his study at the turn of the century? >> it would feel very much like his office at the turn of the century. even a cluttered desk and the open bible. >> we will check in with you, bob puschendorf, throughout the program. thank you for opening up this home to c-span cameras. we're joined from west virginia. we welcome your calls and participation. this is the third of our series, looking at the life and political career of william jennings bryan. caller: i would like you to talk about thomas nast. >> thomas nast. >> he was a cartoonist who was responsible for the image that we have of santa claus. he was a german immigrant. very popular images that he created of the democratic donkey and the republican

elephant. by the time that bryan ran, i do not remember if nast is still alive or not, but besides those images, he is best known for the really vitriolic images of boss tweed, the corrupt boss of tammany hall in new york. his images of boss tweed looking like a seedy devil really help to bring tweed down. there was a prosecutor who was able to bring down the tweed ring. later on, a democratic presidential candidate. he prosecuted to read it and was able to bring down tweed wing, as it was known. >> we will go now to sacramento, calif. go ahead, please. caller: my question originates from the american presidents series. during the grover cleveland

episode, there was a question about what grover cleveland thought of william jennings bryan. he said that grover cleveland hated william jennings bryan and he was not able to finish. i am curious what he hated him for and if that was true. >> i will start. you can follow up. grover cleveland was a hard money democratic president. he did not like bryan's position. it was the silver at issue and the income tax that bryan had championed in the house and helped pass. it was the breaking of the cleveland admi of the purchase act that most got the ire of grover cleveland.

>> cleveland was representative of the old democratic party. >> the democratic party, of commercial interests, especially from the east where cleveland was from. he was from buffalo. people who believed in thomas jefferson and that the government should not do very much in the economy. during the depression of the 1890's, grover cleveland said that the people should support the government but the government should not support the people. this is different from what bryan believed. he was a liberal -- in our parlance today. he was a democratic liberal. he believed the government should help those who could not help themselves. he wanted to redress the balance between corporate power and the power of workers and small farmers. also, cleveland had broke the pullman railroad workers' strike with federal troops. the cleveland attorney general was grover's attorney.

egypt he was also a railroad attorney. for bryan, cleveland thought that he represented all that he did not like about politics. >> i want to use these words and get your reaction. withey're filled convictions and bereft of charisma who are willing to lead a charge against secular forces. did they lack convictions and have charisma who are willing to lead a charge against secular forces. >> bryan was a champion of those who needed help. he was a man of great conviction. one of the things he was trying to do that was most difficult was to take on the economic powerful class that had emerged in american politics in a way that did not look like class warfare.

that was what was so hard for bryan to be able to do, to not appear to be a demagogue, to speak sincerely. he was trying to speak to the people without tearing down but instead attempting to build up. that was a very hard case to make. he did it beautifully but it was a very difficult attempt to reveal the inadequacies of american society at the time without looking like someone who was just tearing down the american ideal. >> those are your words. are there parallels to someone today in american politics? who would resemble a william jennings bryan? >> i'm not sure. there are people who want to be william jennings bryan. sarah palin might try to be. angry populist. they believe that a small greedy elite is after the majority of americans. bryan was representative of an

anti-monopoly movement. a movement where people believed that corporate america was taking the country in a revolutionary direction. we have come to grips and come to peace with big business. we cannot imagine a society where that is not there. that was not true for bryan. >> we just looked at the desk that he worked with mary side by side. most businesses were like that in the 1870's and 1860's and 1850's. they were small partnerships and firms. that time before 1896 was a time of enormous industrial growth. colossal corporations. the pennsylvania railroad employing more people than the united states post office.

these were corporations with enormous resources, enormous wealth, and enormous power. most people had experienced a very different america, one with small partnerships. the change was arresting. bryan was speaking to that massive transition in american society and life. >> i want you to listen to the 1900 campaign in which william jennings bryan talked about the issue of transparency. knowing who is contributing to him. hear the words of william jennings bryan from the second of his three campaigns for the white house. >> an election is a public affair. this is held for the benefit of the public and as a means through which the people select their officials. they give direction as to the policies to be adopted. there is no sound reason for secrecy in regards to campaign

methods and publicity will prove in itself a purifying influence in politics. the necessity for publicity has increased because of corporations. the people have to know what influences are at work in the campaign. they will decide whether any party has made it impossible to protect the rights of the people. >> has anything changed a century later? >> that sounds like the basis of citizens united. obviously, people love money. they want the government to do the things they want the government to do. there is a lot of influence if you have a lot of money. bryan was in favor of public financing. he did not want private individuals to give any money to elections.

he realized that would not fly at the time. his idea was to let least publicize the donations. let's make sure that everyone knows it is above board. for example, rockefeller wrote a check for $250,000. standard oil was involved. he wanted that to be known. the first campaign finance law which had passed which banned corporations from giving money to campaigns directly. individuals could still give as much money as they wanted to. this is still something that we argue about all the time. the court has ruled on it, but it is an issue which has certainly not died. >> william joins us from detroit. >> i had a question i wanted to

ask, because i just caught the program and i wanted to understand -- william jennings bryan, was he a supporter of the gold and silver standard in currency in america? >> he wanted the money supply based on both gold and silver, which is the time what it meant that more dollars would have been in circulation. prices would have gone up, but people who produce crops would have seen their prices that they could get for their crops go up and interest rates would have gone up because there was more money in circulation. it sounds arcane and exotic to us today. he wanted more money in people's pockets and interest rates to go down. >> he gets the nomination in 1896. he is renominated in 1900. what happened in 1904?

>> democrats decided to go with a candidate that they thought could appeal to more traditional voters. they nominated for someone who had only run for a judge before. a very great candidate, i think it is fair to say. he did not go around the country giving speeches. more like grover cleveland in many ways. he had some of bryan's policies, but none of his commitment and appeal to ordinary americans. and he got killed in a landslide by teddy roosevelt. >> and the party comes back to william jennings bryan in 1908, why? >> the party is in great need of a leader. it is a party that is divided by region, and it has had a great deal of difficulty

uniting around a candidate and making its voice heard in the election. >> teddy roosevelt becomes president and then william howard taft is elected in 1908. let's go back to something else that was, i guess, rather revolutionary. the debate that took place and how that occurred in 1908. >> it was not a debate like we have now. it was the first time in which both candidates recorded speeches on wax cylinders. you can hear scratchy renditions of them at the library of congress. this was the original version of records. they only lasted up to 3 minutes. you went to a studio and recorded them. bryan also sold these to

campaign supporters. this is a way that you could hear bryan and taft without them having to go to speak to you directly. we take that for granted now but it was the novelty of the time. >> we will begin with the words of william howard taft, followed by william jennings bryan. >> i have known a good many people who are opposed. i have known many members there religiously choose to use that term. i did not realize the immense importance of foreign missions. the truth is, we've got to wake up in this country. we're not the only ones in the world. there are lots of people that are entitled to our sacrifice to help them on in the world. >> imperialism is the policy of an empire. an empire is a nation composed

of different races living under different forms of government. a republic can not be an empire because government derives its just power upon the consent of the governed. our experiment in colonialism has been unfortunate. instead of strength, it has brought weakness. instead of glory, it has brought humiliation. >> the words of william howard taft. did william jennings bryan change as a candidate from his first race in 1896 to his third in 1908? what issues dominated? >> the key issue in 1896 was the gold and silver issue and the issue of a class divisions, the regional decisions. in 1900, it was imperialism. the united states was trying to

stop the philippines' independence movement from winning a war against the u.s. occupation of the islands. 1908, there were several issues. bryan tried to make powers of the trust and the corporations the issue. but taft was seen as progress at the time. he had been secretary of war under teddy roosevelt. in many ways, he was similar to george h.w. bush, running as the hand-picked successor to ronald reagan. similarly, people who liked roosevelt tended to think, we will be safe with taft.

bryan tried to use a lot of the same techniques. he went out to talk to hundreds of thousands of people, but it was not very successful. the country was populous again. times were very good. taft was popular because he was the handpicked successor to a popular president, teddy roosevelt. bryan couldn't get any traction. >> welcome to the conversation, marie. >> how did william jennings bryan come to live in miami, florida? >> in fact, boca raton, florida. >> mary had contracted crippling arthritis and could not live in the winter climate

of nebraska any longer. miami was beginning to be a place for older people to go that could afford to. also, he had strong supporters in the south. so they had gone to to miami and stayed at friends' houses before. >> and you tell a story about how he tried to help bring other things to the area, including a venetian pool, it is still there today. >> after he'd given up all hope to become president, he began to make money, giving speeches for land promoters. this is not one of his more honorable ventures, perhaps, but after all, he needed to make money and he did.

>> then we moved in 1912 and a democrat finally wins the white house, but it is not william jennings bryan. >> it is woodrow wilson. the democrats struggled for some time and bryan had led much of the struggle against the republican party. they were able to cut through many of the issues that they have brought forward and develop their agenda as a progressive party. bryan and the democrats had a difficult time reaching that broad middle class and convincing voters that they could bring progressive change, not radical change, but progressive change. wilson was able to do that. he was a professor at princeton.

he had been governor of new jersey. he was a very moderate reformer but a progressive reformer. he was able to succeed where bryan was not. >> the only reason woodrow wilson won was because the republican party split. taft proved not to be a progressive successor to teddy roosevelt. roosevelt tried to wrestle the nomination away from taft, and then becomes the nominee of the new progressive party. if republicans had stayed united, we will not know what happened but it was possible that woodrow wilson would not have won the election. >> joe joins us from phoenix. good evening and welcome to the program. >> a great show and think you. i want to ask something

different. i wondered if that people could speak to his foreign-policy and what he thought about the spanish-american war or the european colonialism. what would the gentleman think how he would handle, for example, afghanistan and iraq and the invasions? what was his mindset back then in terms of how the major colonial powers were going into other countries and controlling them and such? what is your theory about all that? and in general, his foreign policy. >> thank you for the call. he was our 43rd secretary of state.

>> he served in the spanish- american war, but once the war ended, he opposed the occupation of the philippines. he was an anti-imperialist at a time when there was a very large and pro-imperialist contingency in the united states. he traveled around the world the whole year with his family, being financed by william randolph hearst, who he wrote articles for. he went around the world and went to indonesia, then controlled by the dutch, and at each stop he denounced the european powers that controlled those countries. in principle he was opposed to rich countries funding for countries. that does not mean that he was opposed to all wars. he was opposed to what he saw as an unjust war.

as secretary of state, he resigned 1915 because he thought that the united states was about to enter world war i. the lusitania had been torpedoed by a german u-boat. the united states did not get into the war at that time, but he resigned because he was so opposed to the war. he thought it was an insane war that the united states should not be a part of. >> what was his relationship like with woodrow wilson during the campaign in 1912 and in his tenure as secretary of state? >> he comes around to supporting wilson in the convention in baltimore, when he supports and helps put wilson over the top at that time when you need 67% of delegate votes to win. he and wilson never were really close. the two did not really trust each other.

wilson was not impressed by him. he despised bryan's intelligence and interest in the world. the two were not close. bryan became secretary of state because it was a political appointment. it was not unusual for the leading figure in the party not the nominee to be nominated secretary of state by an incoming president. one of the reasons bryan was unhappy because he did not get the responsibilities that he wanted. one thing that he did do which shows his views about war and peace, he put together peace treaties with european powers so that they would not go to

war with one another. he gave each of them a little bronze plowshare with a line from isaiah, beat your swords into plowshares, and again, the treaties did not stop world war i, but it was a humanitarian face to the world, one way of actually acting in more humanitarian ways. >> larry joins us from delaware. >> thank you for listening to me. i do have a religious question about his religion. first, let me say that his efforts to level the playing field was an effort to defeat democracy. what are his fundamental

christian belief, and what was the impact on the election results? >> we should point out that the bible is open to the book of ezekiel at his desk, directly below where we are at -- we are in the parlor. but what about the role of religion in his life and his wife's life? >> one of the reason about bryan that is very important, he never really separated religion and politics. he call it applied christianity, the social gospel. if you are a christian, you go out and save the world and help the poor and help workers, you want to level the playing field, as the caller mentioned. so his politics and religion

was not separate. most were evangelical protestants at the time, but others were not so enthusiastic because he was such a crusader and he supported prohibition in 1910. he was a big supporter of became the 18th amendment to the constitution. it was a very divisive issue in american life. he came to prohibition because he wanted to purify the american body politic. after 1910, not many trusted him because he was a prohibitionist. >> sometimes when he was on the campaign trail, sometimes he could eat as many as six meals a day. he could off six chickens at one sitting.

>> if you're just getting in, this is our series where we look at 14 candidates for the presidency. all 14 lost, but in some way they shaped american politics, and in many cases, resonate today with the issues that they put forward. we come to you from his home in lincoln, nebraska -- fairview, which is part of the medical center here in the state capital. our phone lines are open. this is an exterior view of what the home looks like. you can see the bryanlgh medical center. it does offer tours for those who travel through lincoln, nebraska. from palm springs, california, go ahead, please. >> this is nadine from desert springs, california.

i am not a mormon, this is my hobby and i researched my family. i have 6 200 names in the bible, and i like to know about buying the book or the speeches or what you have and how much it is and where they send the money. >> before you get an answer to that question, who is in this photograph and what is your connection with william jennings bryan for your family research? >> as far as i know, he is in a car in this picture, like the kodak picture? and he is in the car with what looks like a single seater with the top down.

and i always thought that the other man was no one whose name i cannot remember, who did not believe in religion. >> clarence darrow? >> and i am almost 95 years old so i cannot remember his name. but i have this, and he is in my family. i have 6200 names that i have researched, on my computer. i researched them and make sure that they are my relatives. >> i want to let you stay on the line. we will try to get a phone number to get you connected with him directly. she brings up another part of his life, dayton, tennessee, the scopes monkey trial and clarence darrow. >> i was just going to tell nadine that we've put all of his speeches from 1896 online on our digital project.

if you like to use your computer to look at the speeches, there are hundreds of them. every speech he gave in that 1896 presidential campaign is online on the "roads in the making -- modern america" website. >> all material from the series is available on-line, 14 weeks looking at presidential contenders. michael kazin. the scopes monkey trial. >> william jennings bryan is known to a lot of americans because he was the prosecutor in the trial in tennessee in 1925, which was prosecuting a teacher, john scopes, who was teaching the theory of evolution in high school in dayton, tennessee. what is interesting about this

is that this issue is very much alive, with large number of americans believing that the bible, the book of genesis is the truth, is how the earth was formed. bryan believed that the too. one of the things he did not like about the theory of evolution was social darwinism. the survival of the fittest, that might makes right, and he put out a series of lectures about evolution before the scopes trial which was entitled "brother versus brute." he did not understand the science very well, but he believed wrongly that the way the science was being applied by some people who have done so well in society, those who are

doing well were those who should do well, who were biologically inclined to come out on top. this is one of the things he disliked about the theory. but he was a fundamentalist and he believed that what the bible said was true. he did not like something that would counteract that. >> iconic photograph of clarence darrow and william jennings bryan in tennessee. how did they come together for this historic moment in american history? >> bryan was asked by the prosecution to help with the trial. they knew that if bryan helped them, this would draw a lot of attention to the case. once clarence darrow, this great defense lawyer, a labor candidate like eugene debs and many of the figures, and when he heard that bryan, a former friend, was going to work for

the prosecution, he was the defense for scopes. you might remember "inherit the wind," starring spencer tracy and frederic march. scopes never went to jail. he agreed to be the defendant because he knew that a trial would take place someplace in tennessee. he wanted to help bring people to dayton. >> it was broadcast nationwide on radio. >> one of the things that is so remarkable about this trial, not only that it was broadcast on

the radio and tens of thousands of americans listened to it, but it was also a court room. and for bryan to defend his christianity and creationism in the court room, it was the context of the court room and cross-examination that made it difficult for bryan to say what he really meant and what he was trying to convey about the importance of creation in his thinking, and about the central darwinist logic as he saw it, which was affecting american society, as michael pointed out. it was a very difficult context in which to make that argument. bryan spends his life as a man out of context. in 1896, the context was perfect for bryan to make a cross of gold speech.

but dayton was very challenging for bryan. >> let's go to mark in arlington, texas. >> the gold standard seems to have made a comeback. we're having debates about whether it should be brought back, and others will come out arguing against the federal reserve and for the government to print its own currency. those people almost always seem to quote william jennings bryan to support their argument. so he seemed to be making a comeback. are there any ways in which his cross of gold speech is relevant to the america we live in today? >> and less good to the 1912 campaign, because even rick perry has been critical of ben bernanke. >> the gold and silver

standard, the legacy of that debate was among other things, the federal reserve system. it was going to get off the gold standard eventually. what bryan and those supporting him really wanted was a more flexible situation. they were happy that have prices go up, just as the fed does today. of course we get in economic trouble like we are now, and people look for the gold standard, for example. but i think, as a historian, in many ways one of the reasons we have been able to avoid serious economic downturns between the great depression and now is because we have a central money supply and the fed has been able to take charge when necessary.

>> one of the big issues that bryan was trying to confront with a silver issue and the gold standard was the great contraction of the american economy. he lived through a similar contraction in the american economy. it is not surprising that some of these issues are coming forward where they are right now. the difference is that bryan's efforts to broaden the money- supply were mainly aimed at trying to rescue a class of americans who were struggling deeply with their financial well-being in their situation. i do not see that playing out today in the same way when the gold standard is being brought up. >> representing georgetown university and the university of nebraska. he is also the author of "the iron way."

>> it seems rather ironic that many of the parallels from william jennings bryan's day and today is just amazing. again we are arguing soft money versus hard money. and we do see the class warfare argument, except this time the argument is coming from the rich against the poor as opposed to the poor against the rich. the irony in my mind is just amazing. >> who would like to take that point? >> it is interesting to look back at that time. for bryan to make that argument, also about the income tax, and about the monopoly power that he saw all around and

the corruption and politics, and the trust, all of those things together, he was accused by the republicans of practicing a form of demagoguery or of class warfare, of opening the door to class warfare, by even mentioning these things and bringing them up. bryan was trying to lead americans, for what he saw, to see that the moneyed class was not looking out for their interests. but he had to frame it for a way that it did not become class warfare. americans did not want class warfare. they had seen a series of strikes in the last 20 years that looked an awful lot like class warfare or something that they feared from europe, communist organizations and conflicts.

that fear of class warfare is very vital to the period of the 1890 bryan is campaigning. the strike of 1877, for example, with the militia and the federal government bringing out gatling guns and mowing down american workers who are striking, that did not sit well with the american people. bryan was walking a thin line trying to raise the issue but not being accused of class warfare. >> he moved here as an adult where he ran for congress for two terms, and became the democratic presidential nominee in 1896. he moved here, and bob puschendorf is down below. how did they use the home after 1902 when they first moved here?

>> an interesting combination of issues. the second floor, right above where you're sitting, was the family bedrooms and sleeping chambers. the first floor was meant primarily for entertaining. you can see the wide open spaces where they would entertain their friends. and the lower level was more of a family area. including the dining room and of course the office which we have seen earlier. >> as you research the uses of the home, and the visitors, who would have been here? >> there were a number of prominent guests, woodrow wilson being one of them. but a number of social acquaintances as well as political figures have been visitors to the house. >> we talked about the name fairview, because it gave you a sense of the nebraska landscape. now it is the home of the bryan medical center. >> they said it was one of the

most beautiful vistas of farm country he had ever seen. you could see the land east of lincoln and they chose their homesite in 1901. >> what is his legacy here in lincoln, nebraska? >> he is one of the most famous sons. he is widely recognized by nebraskans and nationwide. we're proud that we've generated people of his stature, even though he did not win the presidency. it was an important aspect in nebraska's political life to have such character. >> i think he brings the democratic party into nebraska's history.

there were democrats here before william jennings bryan campaign, but he elevates the democratic party and its stature here in nebraska. obviously he is a major figure in nebraska's history, but a local legacy is this home and hospital. >> john joins us from san francisco as we look at the life and political career of william jennings bryan. >> bryan defended the ku klux klan in 1924. did he also privately embrace the practice of lynching in the south? >> he did not defend the klan in 1924. there was a democratic convention in new york city, and it was about whether to denounce

the klan by name and not. he believed that the democrats should win over the klan rather than denounce them. but he certainly had supporters in the klan, but it is not fair to say that he was a supporter of klan, and he was a racist. we consider him that now. but he denounced lynching. he was a white supremacist. but i want it clarified that his racial views are not as simple as to say that he was a klansman or he was in favor of lynching people without trial. he supported the views of most white southerners, and most white northerners as well of the time, that european americans were superior to other people. in that sense, he was certainly not a modern thinker. >> he is certainly a democratic political figure in the sense,

from that period, in that he broadly believes in white supremacy. he is appealing to votes in the democratic south on those grounds as well. >> he was a democrat with a small d as well as a large d. but the majority of the people in the country were white and he was mostly concerned with their welfare, it is fair to say. he did not know many black people in 1896, there was a group of what we call -- some african-americans in omaha that supported him. he had them over to visit. but politically, he wanted to stay as far from that issue as he could. the 1980 -- the 1908 campaign, and the boys -- w.e.b. du bois

wanted to support him against william howard taft, but bryan would not acknowledge him because he was afraid he would lose part of the south. >> this series has been fascinating and your guests are very interesting. this topic is great. i had heard it one time that "the wizard of oz," it was an allegorical novel where william jennings bryan was depicted as the wizard. >> had either of you heard that? >> that is one of the great mysteries of american history. i've given lectures about this. it is a wonderful way to teach

students about the election of 1896. different figures in the first oz novel corresponding to people in that campaign. but if you look at baum's biography, it does not bear out. to him, the artifice of the design of the department store window was one way he thought american society developed. to him, "the wizard of oz" was a symbol of commercial art. baum would have been surprised by that allegorical meaning that people found in the first story, even though it is an entertaining way to look at it. >> let me throw another parallel on the table. karl rove talked about the mckinley campaign and how he tried to take some of the lessons from that campaign to

george w. bush in 2000. >> one of the things in that campaign, it established the republican party and presidential elections, and most congressional elections as well as the majority party. there is no majority party from 1868 until 1896. but karl rove wanted to do was produce a new republican majority based on what he would have seen as the most forward- looking for the business community and also a pretty heterogeneous group of middle- class american voters. he wanted to do that by including a large group. mckinley tried to appeal to european immigrants at the time, a very large expanding group in the population. he was able to in 1896 and 1900

to win over german voters who have been democrats before, but they mostly became republicans for various reasons. mark hanna, the rosario of mckinley's career, produced this new republican majority. it did not happen and george w. bush was not as successful a president as william mckinley. >> we come from lincoln, nebraska and where william jennings bryan served two terms in the state house of house of representatives. frank joins us from salem, illinois. the home town -- the birthplace of william jennings bryan. >> yes, we have most places open to the public, if you call in advance.

[laughter] how much influence did he have in getting his brother nominated in 1924 to be the vice-presidential candidate? >> that is a sidelight that many people did not know about. the governor of nebraska then, on him for giving his first name. charles bryan, the brother of william jennings bryan, he was coming out of a tumultuous convention in 1944. it was notable because of his name, and at that time william jennings bryan was a very divisive figure in the party. partly because of the klan debate and partly for other reasons. but the bryan name was still something that democrats hoped

would help them win a lot of rural votes, especially in the midwest, who they thought would go to an independent candidate for president. charles bryan in 1924, his nomination was an attempt by the democrats to keep some of the progressive farm vote on this side. for the most part it did not succeed. >> a caller from pennsylvania, as we look more at the study of william jennings bryan. >> gentlemen, very interesting talk. william jennings bryan was a fundamentalist and a progressive. i believe states like kansas and nebraska, which have large fundamentalist populations, were also during his day very progressive. today they are extremely conservative.

what happened? what caused this change? >> will thomas? >> that is a great question. the progressivism that bryan espoused had a great deal to do with the economic conditions of his day. the prosperity they came forward in american life changed that in the 20th century in ways that bryan could not have predicted. in terms of today's conservatism, bryan also foreshadowed some of that in his faith, but it was based around the social gospel movement of an applied christianity, helping those in the cities, helping those in need, in that branch of christian thought and

experience did not grow in the same way as the fundamentalist movement. another thing to think about is both liberalism and conservatism has changed their postures toward active christianity in public life. liberals generally, especially white liberals, got soured on public philanthropy and became more identified with a more pluralistic, secular kind of religious landscape. whereas conservatives, particularly evangelicals, became identified with christian right in the 1970's. abortion and gay marriage and those kinds of issues.

>> michael kazin and will thomas, and chris, you have been so patient. >> think you for taking my call. bryan was a populist in both ways, in economics and social issues. socialism, it meant conservatism. it seems that there is no outlet for that between the two major parties today. but i was thinking that there is actually a big constituency for that, if there was an outlet for it. i wanted to get your take on it.

>> every politician today, whatever their theological position, they have to appear to be a religious person whether they go to church or not. in that sense, everyone who has the chance to become president is a religious person. and so far, a christian. but i think though that most people on the liberal side of politics mistrust people who talk too much about their religion in politics. and most of the conservative side want that religious talk to be focused primarily, i think, on issues of personal piety, personal responsibility,

abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cells, and so forth. the kind of social christianity that many christian democrats in europe sets forth. i do not see that really as a real possibility in the near future. one figure, martin luther king jr. was very left-wing in economics, but he was an evangelical minister at the same time. we have a national holiday for someone who did try to put together a very conservative sense of biblical truth and also the very left-wing belief about economic issues.

>> and the connection between william jennings bryan and arbor day, what is it? >> it goes to nebraska again. it was a way to bring more business to this part of the state. >> from washington, good evening. >> my question was about the australian ballot, or the secret ballot of 1896, 1900, 1908. did bryan never talk about the need for secret ballots? i've read anecdotally where employers make sure that wrote

in mckinley and things like that. >> it was not a major issue. like the potential corruption of companies that would bring in voters to vote for elections, or would require voters to vote in a certain way and these accusations are made especially in nebraska of one railroad. it brought them into lincoln and told them which way to vote. that kind of activity led to politicians like bryan and others to object to calls for the kind of secret ballot that would allow individuals to vote

for who they wanted without the pressure of corporate interests in the election. >> our next caller from reno, nevada. >> [unintelligible] >> are you with us? we would try one more time. we're getting some feedback. us's go to nancy joining from another town important to william jennings bryan, dayton, tennessee. >> i am from dayton, tennessee. home of the scopes trial. i am not old enough to remember it. but i know several people that were there and it was carnival-

like, and the table where it all started in, as i understand it, started as let's do something exciting or unusual, let's do this. so that is how it got started. and the older people have told me that dayton has grown into a booming little town. it has a play on the anniversary of the trial, and it is a very interesting place for people to come from all over the united states to see. i just wanted to say that we were known as the monkey town for a long time but now we are known as home of the scopes trial. i did not know william jennings

bryan, but i did meet clarence darrow at a tea held for him by the women of dayton. we're glad that it happened there, and as i was told, it was kind of started for chattanooga, and chattanooga did not want it, so they decided to bring it to dayton. it has brought much economy to the city of dayton. >> thank you for calling in sharing your firsthand account to that famous trial. >> talk about tourism, there is a very good museum in the basement of the court house in dayton, tennessee, about the trial and discussion of it around the world, or you can also visit the courtroom itself. i sat in the judge's chair.

but the famous cross examination, darrow cross- examining bryan, it was actually held on the lawn outside. 2000 people were probably in attendance listening to and watching the cross-examination. we do not have that kind of trial today. but it was, as he said, a carnival and it did help the economy of dayton a good deal because it needed it at the time. >> talk about the prohibition of the income-tax and the popular election of the u.s. senators. >> bryan's legacy -- and michael kazin handles this beautifully in his book, the legacy is damaged by the end of the scopes trial and in particular h.l. mencken's obituary of bryan. it depicts him as a bumbling back-country misguided figure in 1924 and 1925. his legacy is tarnished, really, at the end of his career by this. in michael's book, he recovers

his legacy beautifully. all the reforms that he championed, women's rights in particular, the right to vote. it was an active issue in the 1870's and 1880s, and 1890's. bryan was at the forefront of it, and other issues that you mention in which he was deeply involved from the beginning. >> one of the things it is important that in many ways without bryan, you did not get wilson or roosevelt. he was a major figure into remaking the democratic party into the one that we got today. he forges for the first time in 1908 a great relationship between organized labor and the democratic party, for the most part which has remained over the last century between that movement and that party. he was not the only figure who did this, but he was a key figure in the 1890's in making the democratic party into the party that you think of today. dealing with the strongest of working people, people were down on their luck. that is a very important legacy that he does deserve credit for. >> had he been elected president, what kind of president would he had been?

>> a very good one, actually. his skill was as an agitator and someone who could put forward ideas, rally people to support those ideas. he would probably not have been a good administrator. as president, he would have been a very divisive figure, and very difficult for him to work directly with the opposition party in congress.

>> mark joins us from dallas. josephhe 1800's, did blackburn run against william jennings bryan for the nomination and did he tie with him? >> blackburn got a few of those of most rallied around bryan. it was not really a close contest. that was unusual because conventions back in that day were contentious affairs. by the time they would get there, they would know who the

nomination will go to. >> in 1984, mario cuomo delivers a speech that propels him to the national stage. and then barack obama delivers a speech that propels him to the presidency, some people said. >> obama in that sense is certainly a parallel. he was better known in 1896 to americans than obama was in 2004. which might seem surprising, given all the media that we have. but he had gone over the country.

lyndon johnson put the democratic party into support of civil rights, which they never had been before. >> what about today, other parallels to other modern politicians? >> i think obama's speech in that way is similar. it vaulted him into national prominence. bryan had already achieved much of that, but the sense of party unity that both of them brought to the speeches and the kind of sincerity and speaking across the broad range of public and speaking outside of their party as well, both of them are able to do that in those settings. they are different in other ways but there is a similarity. >> william thomas is the chair of the history department of the university of nebraska in lincoln. michael kazin teaches history at

georgetown university. >> i started researching my book around 1986, and it was published in 2006. >> we thank you for your perspective on the life and career of william jennings bryan. our thanks to the staff here at the william jennings bryan home and to the staff and the administration at the bryanlgh medical center which makes up the campus that we are out, part of the bryan home, often called fairview. we will hear more of the words of william jennings bryan and you can check it out of line at c-span.org. in the words of william jennings bryan, what made an ideal republic? >> behold a republic, resting securely upon the foundation stones quarried by revolutionary patriots from the mountain of eternal truth -- a republic applying in practice and proclaiming to the world

the self-evident proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with inalienable rights, that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. behold a republic in which civil and religious liberty stimulate all to earnest endeavor and in which the law restrains every hand uplifted for a neighbor's injury. >> he represented the socialist party for america running prime- time is. the last time, from prison. eugene debs lost but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new series, "the contenders." friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. watch some of our videos about

him on our website for the series, c-span.org/thecon tenders. >> which part of the constitution is important to you? make a five-eight minutes the documentary entellus the part of the constitution that is important to you and why. make sure to include a video of c-span programming. entries are due by january 20th, 2012. for all details, studentcam.org. >> on thursday, secretary of defense leon panetta and the joint chiefs of staff admiral mullen discussed strategy in iraq and afghanistan. this was secretary panetta's first and admiral mullen's last

testimony. this is three hours, 15 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. the committee receives testimony on the u.s. strategy on afghanistan and iraq. this morning's meeting is secretary pentad up's first appearing -- secretary leon panetta's first appearance as the secretary of defense and is likely to be admiral mullen's last appearance before retiring at the end of the month. since the admirals' 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 us through one of

the most complex four-year times in recent history. among the challenges occurring have been the following -- a drawdown of forces in iraq, a shift to a counterinsurgency strategy with the surge of troops in afghanistan, a reduction of u.s. troops in afghanistan, support of nato operations in libya, management of a volatile relationship with pakistan military, counter- terrorism operations against al qaeda and other trans-national terrorist groups including the raid by our special operations this past may that killed bin laden in pakistan. throughout his chairmanship in 40 years of service to this nation, the admiral has provided steady, dedication and

leadership and thoughtful, principled, and courageous military judgment. admiral mullen has been joined by his wife, deborah, who has been equally tirelessly promoting initiatives on behalf of the military families and wounded warriors. on behalf of everyone on this committee, admiral, thank you. afghanistan will not again served as a safe haven for extremists. his outlined in the west point speech called for a surge of an additional 33,000 troops to afghanistan to break the

insurgency momentum, to help build the capacity of the afghan security forces. he stated at that time that 18 months later that these surged troops would begin to come home. our military men and women performed beautifully. much of afghanistan and seize the initiative in key areas including strongholds in the south. the nato training mission has added 100,000 soldiers and police to the ranks of the security forces which are partner with coalition forces in the field and are increasingly in the lead in operations. in this regard, the assassination of the afghan high piece council, rabbani, was

despicable. the taliban can no longer hold territory and are contested more than ever by the afghan people visit their attacks by civilians. they maintain the sense of urgency at the high slot all of the afghan government. as 33,000 american troops drawdown, the afghan army and police will grow by another 70,000 to a total of more than 350,000 and these forces will increasingly be in the lead in more than willing to take on the taliban. the growing capabilities of the security forces represent the

best chance for success of the mission to create a secure afghanistan which can no longer be the staging ground for an attack against us. this committee has heard directly by military directors charged with implementing the president's decision to said they supported. general john allen, general dempsey, and others. afghan security forces are in charge in seven areas in afghanistan and we agreed that the afghan security forces should assume responsibility for protecting the people throughout the country by 2014. this transition to afghan control does not mean that the united states will abandon

afghanistan. the strategic partnership agreement being negotiated between the united states and afghanistan 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 cannot -- intends to remain in lamotte repeat the mistakes of 1989 when the u.s. turned their attention elsewhere following the soviet withdrawal from afghanistan. clearly, great challenges remain by the threat posed by the militant extremists launching attacks against afghanistan and coalition forces from sanctuaries in pakistan. particularly the haqqani group and the afghan taliban the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan, ryan crocker, has said that a series

of recent tax including the deadly attack were the work of the group working out side of afghanistan. our ambassador to pakistan said there was evidence linking the conneen network to the pakistan government. the ambassador added this is something that must stop and leon panetta said the message they need to know is that we will do everything we can to defend our forces. i'm glad to read a few days ago that the leaders haven't informed that we will in fact be doing just that to act more directly. i've repeatedly written to secretary clinton to press to have the haqqani group added to the state department group of

terrorist organizations to have more tools available to sanction that. this is long overdue and i hope the state department will move quickly to designate them as a foreign terrorist organization. when senator murphy and i visited in august, we repeatedly heard how the insurgent safe havens in afghanistan posed a main threat to our troops and coalition troops in afghanistan. in our discussions with pakistan officials, we heard the same excuse is that we had heard before by the pakistan forces are unable to go after the haqqani in northern nigeria stand. when i asked him on why pakistan has not publicly condemned the deadly cross border attacks on our troops by

the haqqani and afghan taliban, he was unable to provide an answer as to why there has been at least no public condemnation by pakistan leaders of those terrorists were using their soil to cross the border and into afghanistan. it is simply unacceptable that these deadly attacks on our forces continue while pakistan leaders declined to go after them and even failed to publicly condemn their violent cross- border attacks. because of providing that safe- haven, because of connections between pakistan intelligence and the haqqani, pakistan bears some responsibility for the attacks on us. this remains an important objective.

it is important that they actively in the balance of my statement will be put in the record at this point. >> i want to thank our witnesses for the continued service to our country. i want to echo the chairman in recognizing admiral mollen -- mullen in his final appearance and thank him for a lifetime of devotion.

in that same time, u.s. forces will depart from afghanistan to comply. every commander i have spoken with and every knowledgeable group in safeguarding their groups. everyone has paid in blood and treasure. many of us were very concerned in this suggests that they have dramatically reduced the number of troops they were considering, perhaps as low as 3000 troops. incense insisted and everything

i have heard from our military commanders on the ground leads me to believe such a minimal force presence in iraq after this year. as ambassador jeffrey and general austin testified in february, there are still major gaps which leads to a set of missions for sustained u.s. military support. there's a continued need for u.s. forces in the disputed territories of northern iraq. u.s. military support is not

forthcoming in helping to fill these gaps in their capabilities, the stability will be put at great risk. i understand that americans are war-weary, but i would urge commanders to maintain u.s. forces in iraq and that all major political leaders have told us that they need and want. the administration must make sure they do not withdraw as irresponsibly as they often claim invaded iraq. as general petraeus has testified on intelligence, and no commander recommended the plan that the president has adopted. the drawdown of 10,000 troops by

next summer. admiral mmullen, you, yourself, has said this plan would incur more trouble. this would take a vital combat power out of the hands of our commanders on the ground just when they need it most, during the fighting season, which will continue through the summer. after receiving so much after tenure hard years of fighting and, it would increase the risk. it is clear this is working in a tactical military level.

these are inflicting enormous damage. afghan security forces are growing bigger, better, and they can still launch spectacular attacks like the one that killed former president rabbani. the send a signal to our friends to appear are security gains are fleeting and that the talent and will return to power. the attacks are occurring preposition and growing weakness, not mounting strength. now is not the time to put our security gains at unnecessary risk. this is an especially true in light of the ongoing strategic challenges we face in this campaign. these could limit and even

challenge when our troops are doing. one such challenge is the week, corrupt, and predatory challenge. the other challenges the challenge of pakistan and in particular the fact by groups like the haqqani network continue to enjoy a sanctuary as well as active support from intelligence services which they continue to use to attack and kill afghans, pakistanis, and americans. this is the fundamental reality on which we must rebound made our policy toward afghanistan. this is not the answer. we tried that once. the problem got worse, not better.

this matter will likely that a difference in all of our security interests. >> thank you, secretary -- senator mccain. as secretary panetta. >> i would ask them a full statement be made a part of the record. >> it is an honor for me to repair before you for the first time as secretary of defense. i represent the men and women of the department of our armed forces. i want to thank you on their behalf for their dedication, particularly in a time of war and for your determination in joining me in doing everything possible to ensure that they succeed in their mission of protecting america in keeping us safe.

i testify as a nominee for the secretary of defense and i pledge i would treat congress as a full partner. since come i have had the opportunity to consult with many of you on all of the challenges that the department faces. i will continue to do so. it is important to have your guidance and consul as we do with the challenges facing our department. before turning to the pressing issues or challenges of the wars in iraq and up and a stamp, i would like to briefly address the challenge of the defense budget. this relates to everything that we do. the department has been undergoing strategy driven processes to prepare to implement the savings that will be required.

no specific decisions have been made of this point. i'm determined to make these decisions strategically so that we can maintain the most dominant military in the world. these will require hard decisions. they will force us to take on greater risk. it is acceptable, but a reality. the guidelines that will be putting in place as we move forward, first of all, i want to

maintain the best military in the world. secondly, i do not want to hollow out the force. danger has always been that we have hollowed out the forces. i am not going to do that. thirdly, this requires a balanced approach. this is in order to achieve the significant reductions. i'm going to look at all areas and look at deficiencies in reducing overhead, duplication and there are opportunities to try and received savings. procurement, looking out the tightening up of our contract. , creating greater competition with regards to procurement. i must look at the compensation areas. fact is that in some of those

areas the costs have increased by 80%. it costs some 2 $2 billion. i have to do this in a way that does not jeopardize the volunteer force. to that extent, i have to maintain faith with those that have gone. we cannot change the commitments we have made to them. lastly, as i said, we do have to maintain the face of those that are out there fighting every day. howe going back to look at we turn the corner. we've gone through one decade of war. in which the defense budget has more than doubled. now we have to look at a decade where we have to agree that more but be able to fight them and win them if we have to recognize

and we will have less resources. that is the challenge that we face as we confront this budget issue. the department is taking on its share of our country's efforts and we will. i want to caution strongly against further cuts to defense as we go through them. particularly with the mechanism that has been built into the agreement called a sequester. this mechanism of porous defense cuts that, in my view, would do catastrophic damage to our military in its ability to protect our country. i know you share my concerns about the process of sequester. the guarantees we will hollow out the force. i guarantee we can meet our national security

responsibilities about getting our fiscal house in order while at the same time maintaining a strong national defense. we do not have to make a choice between fiscal security and national security. my submitted statement wasn't more details in the challenges that remain. let me briefly address these efforts. i will begin with iraq where 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. today commit fewer than 50,000

u.s. forces remain in iraq and based on the november 2008 security agreement reached with the government on the the last administration, we are planning a drawdown of our combat troops in iraq by the end of the year. still, 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 time, as a result general austin and ambassador jefferies have been in the process of negotiating as to what their needs are and how we can address that. we are seriously considering this request, and i want to make clear that no final decisions have been made. we will continue to consult extensively with the iraqis, but we will also consult with the congress before what a post-2011

training presence will look like. i want to be clear that any security relationship in iraq will be different than the one we have had since 2003. the u.s. wants a normal, productive relationship and a close strategic partnership with a sovereign iraq and with other countries similar to the partnerships. this kind of security assistance would be a means of furthering our strategic partnership that looks to the kind of future role that can benefit -- best addressed their security needs. there's no question that challenges remain. we have to stand out for higher policies. they have to pass a hydrocarbon's law. they have to promote security

efforts that deal with iranian supported extremist groups that have been attacking their forces as well as ours. they have to have security efforts to after the remnants of al qaeda, which still remain. they have to work at a political process that builds a safer and stronger iraq for the future. as a moved decisively to end the war in iraq, we have also turned our attention, focus, and resources to afghanistan in the effort. because of the hard work and sacrifices, afghan and coalition forces, we have established conditions that are putting afghans on the path to resume

this by nationwide. the insurgency has been turned back. these are increasingly strong and capable. we have made significant process with regards to our primary mission of ultimately defeating out qaeda typically with the operations that took down the key leadership and their affiliates. this undeniable progress allowed us to be able to transition to afghan security control. we have done that in seven areas since july. as this transmission commences, we have begun a gradual drawdown that is essential to the success of that transition process.

the lasting security and stability in afghanistan. general allan, who briefed me, is in the process of laying out those plans that will provide a responsible transition. they will not undermine the security of afghanistan. while my overall assessment is that our efforts in afghanistan is heading in the right direction, i think we need to be clear eyed about the challenges that remain. they shifted away from large a tax to a greater reliance and in recent weeks we've seen a spate of such high-profile attacks.

at this time of loss we of convey -- conveyed our condolences to the afghan people. we are concerned that these attacks have caused the loss of life and because they represent an effort to change the process we have made, they must be confronted and cannot be allowed to continue. overall, we judge this change in tactics to be a result of a shift in momentum in our favor and a sign of weakness in the insurgency of overall violence in afghanistan trending down. it is down substantially in areas where we concentrated the search. we must be more effective in stopping these attacks in limiting the ability of the insurgents to create perceptions of increasing security. we're working with our afghan counterparts to discuss with them how we can provide better protection against these

attacks. the bottom line is that we cannot let the sporadic attacks deter us from the process that we have made. the second challenge is a difficult campaign we have had the best in the east for the typography, "cultural differences, and the differences in afghanistan give them differences they have lost elsewhere in the country. the cannot allow terrorists to have safe havens from which they launch attacks and killed. we cannot allow that to happen. we have to bring pressure on the people pakistan to do their part to confront that issue. the third key challenges that we must not anticipate the difficult task they face in developing governments to meet the minimum needs of the afghan people in helping them take and sustain and control their country. i believe we are capable of

meeting that challenge. the must maintain our dedication to the fight. we have some tough days in this campaign. undoubtedly, there are more tough days that lie ahead. this is a heavy burden and i feel personally now as secretary of defense every time i write a condolence letter that it is taking in this office that i have been to dover to receive those that were killed in the helicopter crash last month. by ben to arlington, and i have been to bethesda. in spending time with the families of those who have died or have been seriously wounded in service to this country, there's not a family member who has not taught me and said if i really cared about what happened to their loved ones that i would carry on the mission that they gave their by four or were

seriously wounded. we owe it to those who paid this price to continue the hard work of doing this right and 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 effect of operations in afghanistan and iraq and the strategy that is now bearing fruit and much of it is due to the success of his vision and i know that all of you and all america will join me in thanking him. mike has set a standard in his performance of chairman that will forever be his legacy and i am forever grateful for his service and friendship. thank you. >> thank you, secretary panetta.

>> thank you, members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the situation in afghanistan and iraq. i like senator mccain's characterization that it definitely will be my last hearing. this will be the last time i appear before you in uniform, i hope. let me begin by expressing my deep gratitude. you and i may not always agree on every issue and i think it is fair to say you did not agree between yourselves, but you have never felt but for most in your mind the best interest of the troops and their families. the issues to debate, the boat to take cold in the balance the very lives of americans sons and

daughters, where they fight, whom they fight, and just as critically, what care and support they need when they come home from the fight dominates your discussions. it would be easy to lose perspective in this town and forget what really matters. you have not, and for that deborah and i are returning the grateful. now let me turn to some of those fights i talked about. in afghanistan, i believe that the security to to ration is steadily improving. the military component come to the extent it can be separated from the strategy as a whole is meeting our objectives. they have arrested momentum in several key areas. and the number of insurgents initiated attacks has, for several months in the same or lower than 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 a transition to afghan lead has already begun with seven localities now in afghan hands. we are well postured to begin the withdrawal of 10,000 american troops by the end of this year. as we have advanced, they have adopted. more than ever before they're concentrating their efforts on the tax to produce the maximum psychological impact for military capability. the attacks last week in kabul including the assassination of former afghan president rabbani are as much about headlines and playing on the fears of a traumatized people as they are

about. we will continue to work with the afghan government and we will continue to put pressure on the capabilities and territories that they hold. as i have said many times, the amount of military success along is never enough. other critical challenges play gus and challenges that undermine our efforts -- plague us. it is because of poor governance and corruption. it questions the authority and

sends an aggrieved populace further into the waiting arms of the taliban. we risk leaving behind a government in 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 a government collapse and civil war. a second but no less worrisome challenge we face is the impunity with which certain terrorist groups are allowed to operate. the haqqani network, for one, acts as a veritable army as the internal service intelligence agency. with isi support, there continues to be an assault on

the agency. we incredible intelligence they were behind the attack on the intercontinental hotel in kabul. the army and isi jeopardize our strategic partnership and also pakistan's opportunity to be respected nation with legitimate regional influence. they may believe that by using these that they are hedging their bets for redressing what they feel is an imbalance in a regional power. in reality, they have already lost. but by eroding that committee have lost and undermined their international credibility and threatened their economic well- being. on only a decision to break with

this policy can pave the road to a positive future for pakistan. as you know, i have expended enormous energy on this relationship. we have met more than 2000 times including a 2.5 our meeting last week in spain. i believe in the importance of pakistan to the region because i believe we share a common interest against terri have doni believe it flawed in difficult relationship is better than their relationship all. some may argue i have wasted my time and that there are no closer to less than before. military cooperation is warming and the information flow between us is quickening, transparency returning slowly.

help would have disrupted doubt qaeda and their senior leadership in the border regions. indeed, i think we would be in a far tougher situation in the wake of the frost and is that the fell over us were it not for the groundwork we had laid, were it not for the fact of the could at least have a conversation about the way ahead, however difficult it may be. what matters most right now is moving forward while the relationship must be guided by clear principles by which both sides of here. we can no longer a focus solely on the most obvious issues. we should help create more stakeholders in their prosperity, help people address their economic and political security challenges, and promote indian-pakistan cooperation on the basis of true

sovereign equality. it cannot always be about counter terrorism in the long run. success in the region requires help outside the realm of security. we must agree on a declaration that would clarify and codify our long-term relationship. we must work toward a reconciliation process internal to afghanistan that provides a redress of grievances and a state to state interaction between afghanistan and pakistan to resolve matters of mutual concern. we must make clear to friends and enemies alike that these are not defined by votes on the ground. but rather by consistent come open, and mutually beneficial engagement. that leads me briefly to iraq where we are now ending military occupation and setting stage for a long term strategic partnership. we are on pace to remove troops

by the end of the year per the orders of the commander in chief. we're also in discussions about the possibility of leaving behind a residual training force. no final decisions have been made by our government or theirs, but i can tell you the focus of the discussions remain centered on capabilities, the source of 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 in places like fallujah, tekrit, and bajrah, we honor it to the memory of the people who never made it home to get this right for the future. i came into this job humbled by the scope of these efforts and the sort of challenges that exists by wars in have racked

and afghanistan that we are heading in -- wars in iraq and afghanistan that we are heading in the right direction. one more is heading in the right direction and the other could if other issues were addressed. i leave humbled by the resilience and performance of the those in uniform and their families who did not shrink from duties when to be put them in harm's way. again, thank you for all you have done to make possible what they have done. >> admiral, again on behalf of every member of this committee, every member of the senate, and the people we represent, we thank you for your extraordinary service and your statement about the troops. we will do a seven-minute first round and hopefully will have time for a second round, but you never know. let me go back to pakistan.

admiral, you made a very, very strong statement about pakistan giving safe haven to the haqqani network and al qaeda that are attacking and killing our people, the afghan troops, the coalition troops. i totally share that, and i just want to ask the secretary the first question. i assume from your statement that you basically share what the admiral has said in perhaps more detail, but you basically share his thoughts about the need for pakistan to and the safe haven situation. >> absolutely. >> you said the other day we would not allow these types of attacks to go on. can you make it clear what kind of options are available to west to stop those attacks if pakistan will not prevent it from happening?

>> mr. chairman? -- mr. chairman, i made it clear we will do everything we have to do to defend our forces. i do not think it would be helpful to describe what those options will look like and talk about what operational steps we may or may not take. the first order of business is to come up frankly, but as much pressure on pakistan as we can to deal with this issue from their side. admiral mullen has met with their general and general petraeus has also done so and there is a clear message to them and to others that they must take steps to prevent the safe haven that the haqqani are using. we simply cannot allow these kinds of terrorists to be able to go into afghanistan, attack

our forces, and then return to pakistan for safe haven and not face any kind of pressure from pakistan. >> that has been our position for some time and we have heard their excuses for some time, as well. i pressed him about not even publicly condemning his attacks and his first reaction was that he had. i told him to send me the clippings if he had and he immediately backed off. at a lower level, he says they have made statements. mr. secretary, penumbras have been told that we're going to have to take steps to and these attacks. even though you're 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're not caught by surprise if, in fact, we take steps against that network? >> i didn't think they would be surprised by the actions that we may or may not take. >> admiral, on the troop reductions in pakistan, the president has announced that after the surge forces are returned home, the 33,000 by next summer, that our troops will continue to come home at a steady pace as afghan security forces moved into the lead. is that a position more policy that you support? >> i do.

>> admiral, is it your assessment that the nato training mission is on track to build an afghan army capable of securing responsibility in afghanistan in accordance with the timetable that has been set? >> from my own perspective on the training mission, it is one that goes back a couple of years. sometimes we understate the significant improvements. we had no structures, meaning schools, classroom, curricula, etc., a few years ago. general bill caldwell and others have focused on this in a way that have provided a dramatic breakthrough and a ramp up of afghan security force capability. many of us come a couple of years ago, yourself included

were increasingly concerned about the police in particular, not on like iraq. police training and getting them on the street lags the military, but the gap has been closed. the issue of illiteracy is still a challenge, but we have put in place and literacy training which has been very effective. we see them out now and trained. during the week we have between 25,000-35,000 afghan military and police in training. we're putting in place branch schools for their army. we have improve the training capacity and ability on their air force. we have really made great strides. they are more and more taking the lead in the field. i am encouraged by the advancements. there has been a lot of tough

issues with respect to them, but the way it is being integrated is a great, great improvement. i think so far it has been very successful. we are by no means where we need to be as of this moment. >> the course we are on, you believe we can make the calendar? >> as far as i can see. >> relative to iraq, admiral let me ask you this question. there was a security agreement that was entered into by president bush in 2008 which set a deadline of december 31st of this year for the withdrawal of the remaining u.s. troops in iraq. after 8.5 years of conflict in iraq, the end of this year will mark the completion of the transition of responsibility for responsibility to the

government of iraq. what you have testified here to today is that what we are considering is a training mission at the you -- at the request of the iraqis. that particular part of our presence could remain if it is negotiated and agreed to. the chief of staff for the army, odierno, is cautious publicly that we should avoid the impression of a large american presence in iraw , having too many soldiers in that country after the deadline to withdraw all this september -- december. have you read it the comments of general odierno? do you agree that appearance needs to be avoided?

>> i did speak to general odierno about his comments and we had a very good discussion about that. >> i assume you urged him to keep comments private while the president is considering his decision. >> and there was no one more sensitive than when he was a commander on the ground about comments from some of us in washington. i think we all have to be very careful. >> putting that aside, in terms of a mission in iraq, would you agree we must be careful to avoid keeping a large number of troops in iraq to be consistent with the agreement president bush entered into and that it could unleash street demonstrations which would possibly result in further instability. whenever our negotiation is at the request of the iraqis and we should be very careful in terms of the numbers we might

negotiate. >> we need to be careful about the numbers. for me, the most critical part is to get the strategic partnership bright, as the secretary testified, and that we are really in the middle of negotiations with respect to what the iraqis want and what can the iraqi political leadership delivered. as the secretary said, there have been no determination toward a decision that this point. >> in the issue is not what they want but what we believe is going to be appropriate, if any, after the request? is it our decision? >> i think it will be, but that is part of the negotiation. >> secretary panetta, do you want to add anything on the continuing training mission in iraq? >> it is important that the purpose of these negotiations is to listen to what its aptly the need in order to ensure that

they can provide security, in order to insure that they can deal with the threat of terrorism, in order to ensure they can take the steps necessary to deal with security threats within their country. me to listen to their means, take them into consideration, indicate what can be provided in order to meet those, and then three process of negotiation, arrived at what that will look at. clearly it will be limited and not reflect the numbers we have had their in the past. it does have to meet their needs, which is what is being negotiated by general austin. >> senator mccain. >> secretary panetta, i do not want to waste the time of the committee with my questioning,

but one of the reasons why this has been delayed as much as it has is because the iraqis wanted to know what our assessment was as to how many troops should be there and that has not been forthcoming. it is difficult for them to make a decision without us making our own input as to what those means are -- needs are. if we are basing it all on their need, that is an incomplete picture because we need to know what america's national security needs are for leaving american troops in harm's way. admiral, do you believe that u.s. forces should remain in the disputed territories of northern iraq as part of a post-2011 mission? >> that is a very, very contentious area. >> do you believe or not believe -- >> the security posture in that area has to be such a said that

it does not come in any way shape or form, blow up. that would be a product of these negotiations. quite frankly, -- >> so you will not give your opinion as to whether we need to have a residual peacekeeping force in northern iraq? >> quite frankly, very recently, there is still a very contentious debate about that issue. >> i a understand. i was asking about your opinion. >> its composition is to be determined. >> every number i have heard is that least 5000 troops would be needed in that area. it would be to prevent what has already been a very volatile. and if we were not there, there would have been more conflict.

military, up from a and strategic standpoint, how beneficial would it be if the president decided to delay the departure of the remaining forces from the summer of next year until the end of next year? >> we are now on afghanistan, sir? as i testified to before, in terms of risk, every commander, and this is not just general allen or general petraeus before him, they would like as much combat power for as long as possible, but i think there is increased risk. to get it done by the end of summer, and as i said to the chairman, do i support the president's policy? absolutely, i do. general allan is working his way through the end of this year and has not worked through what it

means for next year. now will be based on conditions on the ground. generally speaking, a commander will want combat power for as long as possible. that said, the decision is made to bring them out by the end of summer and while at the risk is up, i think it is manageable and there is no question we can get there to sustain the military success and a military component of the campaign. by accelerating control, that does increase the military risks. >> yes. one of the things of we have learned this bill lot about the

importance of composition of forces in addition to just sheer numbers. the has been pressure on both sides of the issue into contrition. that is something that i take away from the end of my tour. it is not simply all about numbers. in afghanistan in particular, it is the combined security forces. the afghan security forces -- >> it does not just that but a peacekeeping ocean. obviously, you have stated publicly about and i appreciate very much about the degree of

haqqanition of the up conni networking, they morning nitrate factoroes. you understandably said you could muster with us what the options are. congress does have a role to play, especially not just on policy, but on funding. i think you have a real uphill battle in convincing the congress to maintain the level of funding and assistance to pakistan unless there is some

change. as i said, i do not know exactly what the witnesses. as i mentioned earlier, we tried cutting our relationship with them and that did not work for will. many to start discussion with members of congress what the options are to bring change the status quo. the taliban does not want to reconcile. but wants to murder and maim its way through. >> there is no doubt that, when that happens and it is done by the taliban, it is an indication that the least that particular

faction that that person is from is not interested in the peacemaking process. it does raise concerns. it raises suspicions. nevertheless, we must continue to pursue the opportunities that are out there. we ought to do it with our eyes open. we do it with the understanding the lindor they're coming from. >> my time is expired. general allan said that it is pretty clear how that the taliban still has the highest priority on the battlefield. do you agree with that? >> from everything i have seen, the continue to pursue their goals. as i said, and geneticists estimate where they're coming

from. the best message dickinson to little book -- the best message we can send to the television is that we're not going in your -- to the taliban is that we're not going anywhere. >> general allan sees that there more and more disgruntled. their morale is down. i would agree that that is what they like to accomplish. their further and further away from accomplishing that part of the mission. >> i wish we were sending a clear divisiosignal as you desc. >> senator reid. >> let me also thank admiral

mullen for his great integrity, intelligence, and remarkable service. thank you very much. in fact, you mentioned have you have been the principal intermediary. when history is written, your contribution, especially at the time, your efforts and others were critical. you have expressed the complex relationship we have with pakistan. correct me if i am wrong. there are two points that i think or hope you're making. one is that we will have a presence in afghanistan after

2014, a robust counter-terrorism presence, a training programs, and an assist as presence. -- and an assistance presence. the second point is that, when we come out or come down in 2014, we will not have to rely own lines of communications with pakistan and other support mechanisms that they provide that will give us some operational flexibility. is that action -- is that accurate? have those points been made? question continue on this path to shift lead security to the

afghans by 2014. while there may be some ongoing discussions of was next, the discussions that i have seen, especially modeled not unlike iraq, the negotiation with the afghans about what the long term should. and that is why i think this strategic partnership currently being negotiated is important. we will be the more than 2014. we left afghanistan in 1989. they remember that. the long-term commitment is critical. -- we canople speculate about the composition might be. there is no real determination. but there is this long-term commitment over how we do that.

if we leave the region, we will be back. it will only get worse. we have to unstable countries -- we have to go unstable countries, one with nuclear weapons and one without nuclear- weapons but seeking them. >> we will have a long-term presence, but it will be -- a deal not be the same as we have today. we will not depend on the gasoline from karachi up through there. this will give us operational flexibility that i hope they will appreciate. >> certainly, we will have more

operational flexibility. we just will not have as many troops. that said, there are other options to supply our troops. there are difficulties associated with that. i will not say that we will completely done. >> from the very beginning, the president made clear that we will have an enduring presence there. we are in the process, obviously, of negotiating that now with the afghans with regards to the agreement on forces. i think it is clear, as we draw down, as you try to provide this transition, that in the future, we have to be prepared to listen

to their needs and what they will need in terms of training and in terms of security that will give us the opportunity to ensure that all the gains that have been made will continue on the right track. >> as we come down, we will put a lot of increased burden on first the afghani national security forces -- and i concur with your assessment that there has been remarkable progress -- and second the issue of governance. so would have to think that the strongest element mid have is the afghan national security forces. on the issue of corruption, we have a task force and we will try to rip it out, but that is a

long-term effort. and the question comes -- how will we financially support the afghan national security forces? we cannot do it by the united states alone. is there an international agreement? it consumes probably 40% of the budget if they were fully funding their forces? >> i think -- i am relying a great deal on general allan not only for how we began to bring down the surge, but also what happens between now and 2014. i have a tremendous amount of confidence. as we transition, we bring in capable army and police to

provide security. admittedly, those areas your areas. -- those areas are our areas. it will have an impact on how we measure the transition going down. with regard to the cost, it is a concern that we develop this large force. what is the sustainability? he does not cheap. the difference now is how we reduce the cost and how we maintain that for some future?

this is not a cost that we ought to bear. this is a cost that nato and others ought to bear. >> think you very much. -- thank you very much. >> thank you for your service. secretary panetta, their three things in particular. first of all, a lot of people question the mission. alice thinking it was unique to me, as a visit the families of the people who've lost people, we cannot talk about how we can

deny this mission to go through. i think maybe that is pretty consistent. the second thing you said there think is very significant is that, looking and any future cuts, whether they come through sequestration nor anything else, it would be devastating to our abilities. when you talk about the whole of force, what gets neglected is usually maintenance, modernization, and if we do lead to that, they will have a whole force. i know that adds your resources.

i know where they're committed. where we maintain it where we have seen it in the past? >> i have learned not to take the simple way out by reducing your thing by a simple percentage across the board. that is what we have done the past. the results is that training was weakened. the force was weakened. they did not have the -- they did not have the weaponry and the training. we did hollowed out -- we did hollow out the force. we cannot say that we will take everything down by a certain percentage. i will let do that. -- i will not do that.

>> senator reid talked about the long term commitment as something that the american people do not think about. if we have to come back a year from now, each month the terrorist gain greater capabilities. when netanyahu paid his visit here, he used talking about iran. but the capabilities continue on each side. the concept of making withdrawal dates, the fact that we are telling the enemy of what we will be doing and when we will be doing it, if they know the time line and the mentality that

we are dealing with, we think in terms of hours and days. they think in terms of years and decades. last week, ambassador crocker said that what we have to do is demonstrate the strategic patience necessary to win a long war. but will require more resources and time. we hope it can bring those to bear. it is painful. it has cost us a lot. in terms of the conflict of setting the stage, do you believe that, when the dates were set, that if to demonstrate to the strategic patience we were talking about?

what do you feel about withdrawal dates? >> my approach to it is that the most important signal we can send is that, if we do this right and we do it with the right conditions on the ground, is to make sure that it works. the key is making this transition work, making sure that the areas that we transition remain secure, making sure 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 is a day or not, obviously, we will have differences over that. but i think the real key is how to conduct this transition in a way that makes clear that we are

headed in the right place. >> i think that is a difficult thing to deal with. every visit i have made over there, the afghan coalition personnel unanimously said that setting the dates was a bad idea. we talked a little bit about something and want to elaborate on. wishing to concentrate on the bad things. this thing -- we seem to concentrate on the bad things. we spend a long time going over what they are doing in the kabul military. the last figure i got was about $12 billion a year, the cost. i would hope you would look at the successes we were having in

not just the abilities of these guys we're training, but in their attitudes. they're very proud. they're looking for the day when they will be able to do the very jobs that they are being trained for. you have any comments to make on that? >> i've visited the police academy there. one of the things that took away was exactly what you said. what i did not understand is -- we have focused so much on the literacy. but the officer's car a literate force. -- but the officers are a leveraged force. general caldwell has returned this year because of the announcement of $1.6 million in 2011. we know $12 billion a year will lot work.

there's a lot of detailed work to look at how to get that significantly down. john allen has a lot of confidence in that work. we know that there has to be something otheir long term. so the afghans. from that model standpoint, i am very cursed with where we are and where we have come from in less than 24 months. >> i am, too. secateurs panetta, your new at this job, but you're familiar with what we're talking about. i just hope nothing will change that successful pattern. i time is expired, but i do have for the record of that coalition forces. i will submit that question. >> thank you. senator web. >> let me begin by joining everyone else in thinking

admiral mullen for his great service and adding a particular personal note. we had the pleasure of knowing each other for more years than i can count since we were plebes at the naval academy try to figure out what the hell infantry was and how you can measure the thermal dynamic properties. it has been a long journey. mike mullen, from day one, all those years ago, has been known for its forthrightness and integrity. it is a great honor to work with you in your present capacity and i also wish you and your family -- your wife has an enormous things for wounded warriors and those things. thank you for your service.

we look forward to seeing you in other occasions. when listening to the exchanges, days occurred to me that we tend to go tactical one we have these discussions. at the same time, we should be struggling with the strategic and operational model we should be using, looking into the future in order to address the issue of international terrorism. it is not the carroll, but if we look at the models of the last 10 years, how we have struggled with this, we ought to have a better idea in terms of how we will move into the future. we can start with the model of iraq. the discussions i have listened to today clearly indicate that we have inherited certain responsibilities as a result of what 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 that followed our invasion. we spent well over a trillion dollars at the same time, we have seen the empowerment of iran in the process. we can then go to the afghanistan model were there with legitimate issues on international terrorism, but we assume the risk and expense of nation building. it is costly. it is casualty-producing. i frankly do not want -- i do not know what the outcome will be. recently, in addition to the small, we see it in libya where we have seen unbridled presidential discretion in terms

of the decision for one to use military power beyond all normal historical precedent. i have spoken about this many times. we have a definition of a ma humanitarian mission. i worry about that. is a vague standard. when the administration comes forward and says that this is a conflict and we do not have to discuss it with congress, i think we ought to be thinking hard about the implications down the road. especially recently, we have the use of special operations and predators' on remarked -- on remote bases with highly secret missions in remote locations. all of these occur in areas which have fragile government

will systems or, quite frankly, no government assistance. 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 threats to the united states and how we apply military force to them. admiral, this is your final wage. i would like to hear your thoughts. >> as i listen to, i appreciate not only your comments, but obviously the friendship that is pretty special just because of where we both came from. honestly, i think we are, to some degree learning as we go. obviously, decisions get made about where we go to fight and how we fight and we learn lessons from that. clearly, in iraq, notwithstanding whether we

should have gone there or not, but, once there, with a conditional force that needed to dramatically shift, the development of an understanding that we have lost. we have forgotten about what counterinsurgencies were. now the evolution in that regard to where we are. in my view, which i spoke to very early in this job left us under resourced in afghanistan. clearly, the main effort has shifted their. in a way, it is the same kind of fight, but it is a much different place. is not the same country more. i hear the iran emboldened and peas and i get that, but i have seen them iran employment --

iran emboldenment piece and i get that, but the president's decision with libya, it was a completely different way to support the overall efforts there. we have in these hearings and historically, we beat nato to death. we have not heard a word about nato support in afghanistan. it is extraordinary where nato is on these types of things vs. where they were two years to three years ago. i am delighted to see europe take the lead there. again, i deny get to decide what we do. that is something else.

however we got to that decision, i take the tactical council well, but there are strategic evocations for all of these things. i would want to really carefully look at lessons and integrate that into the longer-term strategic view of how to get ahead of this. right now, it is very much one at a time. for me, there are only two existing to threats to our country. one is the nuclear weapons that russia has and the others cyber. you pose difficult questions that come out of all this, if we can step back from day-to-day, we owe ourselves some answers about how to move ahead. it will not 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 difficult as this decade has been and figuring out what we need for the future, that is a very important effort. >> senator, you have raised some very important issues. 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, as to what kind of defense system we need to build as we confront the challenges and as you look to the future. part of this has to be based on the threats that are out there.

clearly, we will continue to have a threat from terrorism and we will have to confront that. and do not think that necessarily means we put 150,000 people in different countries. we have other ways that are much 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 both north korea and iran. we have to be able to confront china. we have to be able to deal with the cyber threat. we have to deal with the challenge of rising powers. all of these things are the kinds of threats we will confront. on -- what kind of forced we need to have to do with those threats. clearly, i need your advice and guidance as we try to structure the future in the defense department.

>> on that point, if we want the country to have patience with respect to fighting a long war, it will be even more important to define very clearly what is the vital national interest in terms of our current operations. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sessions. this is the kind of thing we do need to be talking about. secretary panetta, you said that the defense department has doubled and the last 10 years. actually, i find it to be an 84% increase, not quite double. over 10 years, that is the base budget.

that is and it -- that is a significant increase, but not as much as some of the counts our government has had. the 10-year cost for both wars was about 1.3 trillion dollars. -- $1.30 trillion. the war cost will be no more than 10% of that. i think it is important to realize that we will not balance the budget by the war costs coming down. it did cost us a lot of blood and tragedy and we should never

underestimate that. but in terms of balancing the budget, i see these grim numbers and they are really tough. i believe the defense department has to tighten its belt as a think both 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 $450 billion, secretary panetta, as part of the debt ceiling. it takes the defense budget down about $450 billion over 10 years, which is pushing to%. however, i know the challenge you're faced with is what

happens if there is not an agreement within the committee. admiral mullen, it looks to me like it will be $850 billion or 10 years. in your best military judgment, is that an acceptable reduction in spending? >> absolutely not. our estimates go to $1.10 trillion. but it is not just the amount. it is how it is executed. it is a peanut butter. it is everything. from my perspective, it has a good chance of breaking its and putting us in a position to not keep faith with this all volunteer force that has fought two wars. it needs to be reset in everything that we look at for the future. it will impose a heavy penalty

on developing equipment for the future. if we are not able to -- it will hall was out. i think we do need to participate and i have argued for doing that in roughly the current amount. secretary panetta said very importantly that, whatever changes we make, which is also at the heart of this discussion with senator webb's, it has to be strategically focused. we have to have a strategy. we have to have different views of the future and what it will take to meet that. this is not the 1970's and it is not the 1990's. this is a much more dangerous time because of the world we're living in. the work's -- and keeps showing up on our doorstep for the use of our military. the work we have done to look at how we would do this at the $450

billion 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 will not solve that that problem on the that of the pentagon. you cannot do it if you 0 the budget. >> that is correct. we have a $400 billion deficit and the total defense budget is $529 billion. >> if we have the same problem you have here. yes, it is 10%. we have our own discretionary accounts and our own mandatory counts. if we cannot get some of the mandatory side pay, benefits and those types of things, we are way up on 10% of the counts that

we can affect -- modernization, which is where we always end up going, and force structure. -- and for structure. so we get smaller faster, significantly smaller faster, which would be dangerous. >> you said we could break the military. i have a sense about our fabulous men and women in uniform. they're willing to do tough things. they're willing to take their share, but it can be very demoralizing if there is a perception that they have been targeted for exceptional cuts that others are not taking. we do not agree? >> we have all talked about tightening our belts. we do not get much push back. there can be some specific areas. there is concern for changing the retirement area.

on the immediate horizon, we agree that we have to figure out that, if we make these changes, that we grandfather them properly to keep faith with those that we contract for that are in the force right now. but yes, they are extraordinary and i think they're willing to do their fair share. but they are not willing and should not be willing to do that at an exceptional level. >> let me point out that a sequester is not an across-the- board request. last year, we had to do a flat budgets. we got no increase basically last year. so you're talking about 15% more, probably more than that. whereas, in the last 10 years, defense has gone up 84%.

but the food stamp program has gone up 297%. the medicaid program has gone up 113%. in the last year, it -- in the last two years, non-defense discretionary has gone up 204%. what i am worried about is that our committee, which really needs 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 an acceptable to allow these unfair cuts. medicaid for example, and the food stamps, are admitted from any cuts.

secretary panetta, i felt your strong opening statement matures a mature and 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 who has worked on budget summit's were we ultimately achieve the balanced budget. if the idea is that you can rely on sequestering in order to get there, that is an irresponsible view. we have done that involving the entitlement programs. that is why it did not happen. you have these doom say mechanisms that will blow everybody a been hopes that they will do the right thing, that will not work for will.

responsibility does rely on people in the committee to look at the entire federal budget. you can do with the federal budget that is close to $4 trillion and expect that you can do it through sequestered on the discretionary side alone. discretionary account for one- third of the budget. two-thirds of the budget is in the mandatory area. you have to be willing to put it on the table if you're serious about reducing the deficit. i hope the committee does do that when you look at all of these issues. >> based on your experience in the previous eveefforts succeedd been balancing the budget, would you agree that the depth of our challenge this time is greater than last time? >> sure. the last time we ballast the budget, we thought everybody would be able to continue to operate on a balanced budget. that it would stay in place and we would not dare put this back into a huge deficit again.

unfortunately, that happened in know it is much worse than when i face that issue. it is a huge challenge,, nevertheless, this congress has a responsibility to work with the administration to get a solid track to ultimately reduce that. >> thank you, senator sessions. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. good morning, admiral. welcome to our witnesses this morning. admiral mullen, please convey my love to devore as well. i join my colleagues in thinking you and your family for your many years of outstanding service to our country. and to my classmates, secretary panetta, i want to say hello to

you and to sylvia and wish you well. i want to thank all men and women in uniform as well as their families for all of their sacrifices. will face difficult decisions regarding our future in afghanistan and iraq. our soldiers, failures and -- our soldiers, sailors, and marines continue to serve with distinction. secretary panetta, the special inspector for afghanistan an audit.and nodde

as we look to the future, what are some of the adjustments being made to increase our cost of billeted -- our accountability of these dollars. >> one of our concern is that we ought to be able to audit the books of defense. curley, we do not have an overall accountability -- currently, we do not have an overall accountability for the defense department. i think we have to be able to be auditable and accountable to the american people on how these dollars are being spent. i urge all the people in our budget shop to do everything necessary to try to speed up that process so we can track these dollars and make certain

that the taxpayers are getting the best bang for their buck. >> secretary panetta, last quarter, isaf rated three additional units within the afghan national army they're capable of operating independently. as we continue to transition afghanistan to host nation patrol, what is the fate of the remaining units that are attempting to achieve this high rating level? >> i leave you to admiral mullen who has been working directly with this issue. my understanding is that the number of units that have the capability have gone up dramatically. what i have seen in the trips i have made their is that there are more and more units that are

operational, that are able to go into battle, that are able to conduct the kind of operations that have to be conducted in order to defeat the taliban. it has taken a while and a lot of training and a lot of work, but we do see units that are increasingly capable of engaging in battle. if we're able to make this transition, we have to make sure they all have that capability. >> over 70% of the police units are rated at the top proficiency levels. 90% of the overall nsf units were isaf. the lead occurs in about 60% of our operations. that is a far cry from where we were 12 months to 18 months ago. the trends are all in the right direction. i do not want to overstate this.

there is an awful lot of hard work left. but in this area in particular, it has been extremely successful over the course of the last year and have. and we look for that to continue. we see nothing that gets in the way of them continuing to take the lead, becoming more proficient so that they can have the lead throughout the country by the end of 2014. >> thank you. admiral mullen. the joint ied organization was created in 2006 to reduce or eliminate the effects of 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-prong commission to attack this network and defeat the device and train the force?

>> i think the joint ied force has been a tremendous success. i am not aware of the investment it has taken. when it was heavily focused although not exclusively on iraq, it had an enormous impact across all three of those missions sets. it is currently led by somebody who is -- who has been in the fight. it is still extremely difficult yet the enemy is shifting more and more to these spectacular attacks on the one hand and a very focused on ied implants. it is a -- it is a different ied said. we need to this organization to be in touch with the fight and to be able to respond as rapidly as we can. i appreciate the efforts on the

part of many here in the senate, senator casey leading the effort to continue to put pressure on the ammonium nitrate peace so that we can cut that down as rapidly as possible. there is a view that we should integrate this into our overall organization. i'm not there yet. i think we need to wait until it is much more obvious that we fully integrate a joint ied organization. oftentimes, in our big bureaucracy, that can bring an outfit to parade rest or elimination. it is too vital for our overall fight to do that at this time. >> thank you. 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 that we are hearing right now, if we are able to retain the right people, take care of our families, reset this force, we are the most combat- experienced force in our history. we may be the biggest threat to ourselves if we do not get this right. but if we keep the people right -- that does not mean people the people, but if we're able to ensure that this best force i have ever seen in my life stays whole at whatever size and is supported, then i think we can address whatever threats are out there and provide the military capabilities and provide for the national interest.

it may be that, in the budget world, our care has to be so precise that we do not break faith with their people. if we get that right, i think we will be ok. >> thank you very much, admiral mullen. thank you for your service. i best to you and your family. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank both of you for be here today. admiral mullen, obviously, we will miss having you before this committee and thank you for your tickets of service to this country. director clapper testified last week before the house senate intelligence committee that the real engagement rate from those that we have released from guantanamo bay is at an all-time high, 27%.

that means that, out of the 599 detainees who have been repatriated from guantanamo, there is 129 of them that we have confirmed or suspected every engaging in terrorist activities or insurgent activities that put our troops in danger, further undermining security in the places we are siding and are threats to the american people. i would ask both of you, at this point, would you agree with me that that real engagement rate is unacceptable. >> there's no question. we cannot allow that to happen when we release individuals that immediately go back into battle and start killing our forces. one of the protections is that any kind of a transfer that is made, i have to certify that the

country that except that transfer has taken all the precautions necessary to ensure the that does not happen. i have not done any of that to this point as secretary. but you can be assured that i will not certifiecertified lsi n sure the that will not happen. >> you will not someone be -- you will not allow someone to be transferred from guantanamo to another country if they will ring gauge. >> right. >> i appreciate that. if we capture a high value terrorist tomorrow outside of afghanistan, where do we put them? assuming that we want to interrogate, assuming that you want to detain -- certainly, we continue to have security concerns about them if we were to immediately release them or put them in some other country.

>> the approach in dealing with that now is very much looking at a case-by-case approach. we did that recently with wasabi, a terrorist who was located and captured. we were able to gather a great deal of intelligence from him. as we develop that case, the addition -- the decision was made that he could be prosecuted in the court. with regards to the issue of the ability to detain individuals under the law were provision, that is an area where we need to work with the congress to decide how we do that. the answers to that right now are not very clear. >> i would agree with you. i think we need a long-term detention policy. would you also agree that right

now there's not an alternative to guantanamo? >> first of all, i agree with the thrust of what you're saying. there is no military commander of the that wants to see anybody back and the return rate is far too high. we do need a long-term detention policy. i think the wasami case is instructive. we kept them at sea for a while. but you do not want your navy tied up. moving in that direction, there is a way to keep him and he is being kept right now. having gone to the point where he can be prosecuted. but the law of war peace is a very hard problem that will take

everybody getting together. it has been very contentious. we understand all that. but without that, it has given us this return rate and put people on the ground floor in the fight in a very tough spot. >> when you talk about this situation, we could not do that with every single individual, put them on a ship, in terms of a practical reality. >> no, not really. >> i think we would need more ships if we were to do that. >> bright. >> one of the concerns i have that brings me to this is that 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 do not 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 harm oz, our allies, and our troops. >> bottom line here, senator, we have a real conflict. obviously, the president is very intent on closing guantanamo and not adding to the guantanamo population. at the same time, congress has made very clear that there is another place that we will be able to put these individuals through legislation of one kind or another. we have to be able to resolve that for the benefit of this country. 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 that we should ke