would do. and i'd just like to see a variety of storylines. >> she'll discuss her creerks her new book and the future of the times sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> spend this weekend in naaqsville, tennessee, with "book tv" and "american history tv" and look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of the marble city. on "book tv" on c-span2, the university of tennessee's body farm is four acres of decomposing human remains. dr. william bass on a real-life c.s.i. also, a look at roots author alex haley and his life in naaqsville.

and on "american history tv" on c-span3, a visit to the sequoyah birthplace museum. how an indian silversmith, sequoyah, created a system of writing for the cherokee language. also, a visit to secret city, oak ridge national laboratory physician on the lab's part in the development of the atomic bomb. and is naaqsville a true southern city? bruce wheeler on the history, saturday at 11:00 a.m. and sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. watch "book tv" and "american history tv" in naaqsville, tennessee. >> up next, house speaker john boehner talks to reporters about 15 bills that republicans say create jobs which have passed the house and are currently awaiting debate in the senate. he's joined by the majority leader, eric cantor, and several other republican house members.

>> good morning, everyone. you know, american families and small businesses are struggling and that's why republicans are focused on finding common ground between the two parties to put americans back to work. today, the house has passed a bipartisan bill which repeals the i.r.s. 3% withholding tax which would hurt every small business that works with state, local or federal agencies that threaten thousands of jobs. this tax repeal is part of our plan to help american job creators. it's also a part of the president's jobs plan and i'm pleased that he supports our efforts to repeal this tax. i think we owe it to the american people to find common

ground. repealing this tax is another step in that effort of finding common ground. another example would be our efforts several weeks ago on the free trade agreements, again, part of our plan for american job creators and part of the president's. but we should build on all of this by beginning to focus on the forgotten 15. on the back of our card we got the 15 bills that have been passed by the house, that continue to sit in the united states senate. many of these bills passed the house with bipartisan support. 15 commonsense bills that will help get our economy moving again. the president says we can't wait to take action on jobs. and i agree. so i'll call on the president today. mr. president, help us with the united states senate to pass these bipartisan, commonsense measures that will get our

economy moving once again. >> good morning. as the speaker said, the president has been traveling around the country saying we can't wait. and we believe that as well and we're not waiting. we are saying, these are the items that we feel we can work together on with this president and unify the country towards helping an economy grow again. and that's what today's passage of this bill is about on 3% withholding measure. it's about jobs. i know at home in my richmond area district some of my counties are telling me this withholding measure if it were to go into effect, over the last two years would cost at least $15 million. again, this will be money taken out of the private sector, out of the hands of small business men and women and putting it into the coffers of the federal

government. that's exactly what we don't need right now. i also heard from the virginia commonwealth university system which said that this withholding requirement would end up costing it as well as its patients and ben factors more money -- benefactors more money. we are not and should not be in the business of making it more difficult for the public entities nor the private sector businesses to operate and that's what we're about and joining and asking the president to join us. asking him to help convince the senate to bring up some of these measures that we sent over there and actually ask him to help join us in unifying the country rather than focusing on the divides because there is a lot that we can work on together here in common for the benefit of the american people. >> if it looks very similar it's why the sign is that we are focused. we are focused on our plan for job creators.

but this isn't something that is just happening today. you look on the back and you read it, it is the forgotten 15, the other bills, but it's more than the forgotten 15 bills. these 15 bills have faces. from the energy producer in morgan city, louisiana, to the new startup in california, to maybe the farmer in illinois, these are the faces of the forgotten 15. the senate continues not to act, but when you think about the statistics of what has transpired in the last year alone, 2.6 million americans slipped into poverty. they slipped into poverty while the bills continue to sit. we are at the highest level since the census has been taken in the 52 years of 46.2 million people living in poverty. the president says he can't wait. well, i personally can't wait until he gets off the campaign trail. i can't wait until harry reid stops ignoring bills that are

sitting in his chambers and put the faces on it but actually take it to the floor for a debate. the founding fathers crafted what we all believe is the greatest form of government, but the idea can win at the end of the day. but if the idea can never be debated, those faces continue to wait. so we call on the senate, we call on the president, we call on harry reid. don't forget the 15 and definitely stop forgetting about america. >> good morning. i'm renee ellmers from north carolina. i represent the second district. back in my district, my business owners are job creators, are telling me we're hanging on with a thread. by a thread. we're about ready to close our doors. you've heard about the legislation we passed this morning. this will go a long way for those local, state, federal government contractors, removing that uncertainty which are preventing them from moving forward and investing in their businesses and creating jobs.

we can do this today. we can turn this situation around. you heard my colleagues discuss the fact that there are 15 bills that we passed over to the senate which have not been voted on. it's time that harry reid brings these to a vote. it's time for us to turn this economy around. i agree with the president. the american people can't wait any longer. we have got to do this now and we can. so i'm urging all of you to start reaching out to the senate. start calling on harry reid. ask him why. why have we not passed these bills? i believe this bill this morning will pass through the senate and it will reach the president and it will be signed into law and that's a very good thing. but there's so much more work that needs to be done, and i would like for all of us to call on the senate and the president to get this done and get this started today. thank you. >> good morning.

i'm frank griffith from new hampshire. fifth congressional district. i'm here to talk about the specific bill of the forgotten 15, the cement sector regulatory relief act, passed bipartisanly several weeks ago in the house of representatives and is one of the forgotten 15 that laments in the senate. i feel when i go back to new hampshire and phoenix with my stweents when i hear from people across the country, they want action, they want leadership and they want to see american opportunity and the opportunity to get a job again and part of that is we focus on reducing some of the regulatory challenges we have. with this specific piece of legislation, we would be able to help with the creation of thousands of jobs all across our country. and i spoke to one congress crete company specifically in new hampshire who said they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with e.p.a.

regulatory compliance. that is taking money out of the private sector it is taking money out of that company's ability to hire small job growth and good middle-income jobs right in new hampshire. so we want to see the senate act. this is our plan. we have been working on it all year, and we will continue to work on jobs bills each and every week we are here in washington. but we encourage and urge the senate to finally take action. listen to what the president is saying. take up these 15 pieces of legislation. get them passed and let's help america get back to work again. >> good morning. i'm tom reed from new york 29. i stand with the colleagues and the speaker and the whip today to call upon the senate to take up and pass the forgotten 15. we have a jobs plan on the republican side of the aisle. this is our plan. i come here today to

specifically talk about one specific piece of the forgotten 15, the boiler mact legislation. it's a commonsense, bipartisan piece that passed the house that just looks to apply common sense and reasonable standards in the environmental arena so that we can make sure that we're not putting those undue burdens on small business america that are preventing them from hiring people and putting people back to work for generations to come. it's a simple, commonsense piece of legislation. i talked to many in my district who asked that we support it and we push it forward and that is part of 15 bipartisan, commonsense solutions to our job problem in america and with the republican jobs plan that i fully support which is now over sitting on the steps of harry reid, it's time to act. it's time to move. our country can't wait any longer. >> questions. >> mr. speaker, the rumor is

you've been talking to harry reid and also been talking -- talking with reid and with leaders of the joint committee about possible framework for the supercommittee moving forward. can you confirm that and can you agree on a framework? >> well, i think we've asked the supercommittee to do a big job. and i'm going to thank the 12 members who've agreed to serve on this committee for taking on as big as task as i've seen since i've been here. i've had lots of conversations with lots of people, trying to ensure that we do in fact get to something. i'm not surprised that, you know, we're having some difficulty because this isn't -- this isn't easy. it's going to be very, very hard, but i do think it's time for everybody to get serious about this. when i see our news reports of

some of what was put on the table, democrats wanting $3 trillion worth of tax increases, this is the same number that was in the president's budget. the same number that i don't know that they found any democrats in the house and senate to vote for. so -- and i don't think it's a reasonable number. when you look at the medicaid number that i read about, some $50 billion worth of changes, let's understand over the next 10 years we're going to spend $10 trillion on medicaid. i just think there's a lot more room there to help find common ground. and so while i hope the conversations will continue, it's my commitment to try to get to an outcome. >> there seems to be something hung up between you and the president and this congress the entire year and that is republicans will not accept tax increases or revenue.

do you expect the republicans are going to have to give on this at this point? >> i expect it's going to be very difficult to get to an outcome, but i am committed to getting to an outcome. >> a similar question i guess what was asked. the senate wanted a different way. the premise of part of these talks is there can be significant entitlement reforms to significant tax reform leaving aside what's significant. just the idea that conceptually, is that something you see as an acceptable linkage between those two items? >> listen, the conversation all year, my conversation with the president, my conversation with senate leaders this summer, conversations now have kind of reinvolved around the same type of structure and so i'm not surprised that structures still being talked about.

>> falling short of $1.2 billion, would that be an acceptable outcome for you? >> i agree for the supercommittee to meet its goal. it was put together in a bipartisan way. members -- i want to pat the members on the back because they really all have worked hard, but now we are in the tough time and it's going to take a lot more work. pardon me. >> dismantling the trigger? >> our goal was to meet the targets as set forth in the deficit control act. yes. >> in order to avoid the trigger, many of your members have drawn concerns about the defense cuts. in return for avoiding that trigger can you expect some -- even if you're not open to $1.3 trillion? >> i'm committed to getting to

an outcome. >> a balanced budget amendment, one that requires the supercommittee to raise taxes and one that doesn't have a spending cap -- many conservatives are opposed of the version that does not cap spending, does not require a supermajority. has the house republican leadership ruled out according to the version -- >> there are at least a half a different versions of a balanced budget amendment to our constitution. many of us believe that a balanced budget amendment is the ultimate enforcement mechanism to control spending here in washington. as we approach this vote, the leader and i are going to listen to our members about which version they would want us to vote on. and we got no decision yet but we are going to work with our members to make that decision. yes, ma'am. >> the tax overhaul details

should be delegated to the tax writing committee, is that something the supercommittee could take on? >> well, no, i never believed that the supercommittee could rewrite the tax code. i think that's the appropriate role of the committee process in the house and senate and i would expect it would stay that one. last one. >> mr. speaker, members of your own caucus, jon kyl over in the senate, wants a defense spending cut. it could affect the private sector. why has that not been a republican concern? >> i think when you look at the defense cuts, they are going to come as a result of the deficit control act and the caps on discretionary spending. i would argue that they've taken more than their fair share of the hits. i think when you look at what -- you has to be done by the supercommittee, almost all that is going to fall in the area, i think, of mandatory spending

which is more than 2/3 of the budget and it's time for us to do our work there. thank you, all. [inaudible question] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house minority leader nancy pelosi also talked to reporters today. she was asked about the recent supercommittee meetings on the federal deficit. congresswoman pelosi urged members to find a, "big, bowled and balanced plan." she also encouraged the committee to have a bill ready by the end of the year.

>> good morning. we're meeting here between votes so it's all about time and how we use it and it's about time for us to see this supercommittee narrow its possibilities and reach an agreement. as you know, it's only four weeks from yesterday that the deadline of november 23 must be met. we're hoping that the committee will be -- have an agreement that is big, as bold and is balanced. and to that end our -- have great confidence in the members of the committee that our caucus has sent to that table. mr. clyburn, mr. van hollen, mr. becerra have the full confidence of our caucus. they have knowledge. they have judgment. they have -- they share the values of our caucus and they know that we want to have an agreement, a big agreement.

our caucus stood with the president in his big agreement in the summer. that's how we'd like to see the committee go. as we watch the proceedings, and we're not just watching and waiting, we're working. i'm very proud that when the president released his american jobs act, which we hope the majority will take the time to bring to the floor, that we have requested respectfully that our members meet with as many small business owners in their districts as possible. in a matter of weeks, they reached thousands of small business owners to review the president's proposals, to ask for suggestions from the business owners and also to put it in the context of a proposal that should be there.

we wanted something that reflected the entrepreneurial spirit of america. that is reflected in the curming and optimism of our small businesses to take that leap and we want, again, the work there to start with the creation of jobs. we think small business is the path to that. entrepreneurialism should be respected and rewarded. and then look at the tax code and the spending and savings decisions that have to be made in light of how we grow the economy, to reduce the deficit. recognizing that if you're going to have entrepreneurial spirit and innovation, that innovation begins in the classroom and that the importance in our educational investments, whether it's at the community college level for some of the skills that are needed for a trained work force, whether it's producing more engineers and the rest to

keep america number one. so i'm excited about the prospect. the vulnerability that all of the economies of the world have and our dependence on each other, the leadership role that the united states is expected to play and the urgency in terms of job creation for the american people all require us to make our best possible effort to have no separate talent on that table, to go there and get the job done. we told our members we want results and i'm very proud of them and know that they will represent our caucus very well. again, it's about time, that time we have between votes here but it's time that we will not be in january, at a time, anytime having -- six days on the calendar in january, it

really makes you wonder about the schedule. particularly at this time when the american people are feeling so much pain and while i value the time that members spend in their district, as i say, they have been spending time with members during the break, you have to bring the message home, represent your people, find agreement. you can't do that when everyone is at home. i think that the american people deserve better than following a holiday break that on top of that we would have a january where we're six days in session in congress. again, the world is not waiting. the world is watching to see what we do, but events will overtake us if we do not play our leadership role in the world. so, again, it's an unusual time as to what is happening. we have an unusual opportunity. we can do something big here. we can do something big, some

bold, something balanced. it has to be that way. and, again, we have a great deal of enthusiasm in our caucus. if i may just add a political note, i want to commend our distinguished chairman, mr. israel, our chairman. this week we had over 100 candidates come to washington with all of the idealism and fire and spark to ignite the american dream, to build ladders of opportunity, remove obstacles, to success for people who want to work hard and play by the rules. they know what is at stake. they are energized. they give us tremendous momentum that on top of our building successful in our efforts to accrue the resources necessary. if i may be allowed a political note at the end. just in case you would ask, i would anticipate that, since i may have to run out to vote. yes, sir. >> madam leader, without

addressing some of the elements addressed in the supercommittee, do you think you could support a plan that changes the inflation adjustment for social security and affects medicare beneficiaries if there was a tradeoff of some revenue increases? >> well, what i said to you before and i will say it again is that asking about specific things until we see the whole package. it's not fair to say to a senior, you are going to pay more for social security and we are not going to touch a hair on the head of the wealthiest people in our country. by the way, that increase of premium that you're paying is not going to be considered revenue. it's not going to be considered revenue. so let's just see a package. let's not, again, exclude anything. let's just see how they come -- everybody recognizes the balance that we need to have. and i will --

>> can you support the package that senator baucus presented? >> it's -- recognizing senator baucus' package, it has many of the elements we have seen in the other three bipartisan proposals that simples-bowles, rivlin-domenici, gang of six. it has many of the things that president obama thought he had agreement with speaker boehner on. again, i am not making any judgment about any package until i see the fuller package that is a part of. >> a lot of your colleagues have said that it's unfair that you've been cut out of the supercommittee discussions. do you agree with them? >> i don't believe that i have been cut out of the supercommittee discussions. again, the three people that we have sent to the table have my trust and confidence and that of our caucus. if there are many other meetings going on, i hope they

reach agreements on where they may have some differences. and i hope that that is all constructive. again, we're not sitting around waiting while this is going on. we are building our jobs and small business, entrepreneurial proposal which you will see next week, and, again, i didn't -- i would not have appointed people if i said to them, you go there, sit through the meetings, put all this aside for the caucus where we're going. i hope that the same discretion and judgment that i have respected my members with is one that is shared by republican colleagues. i believe that they have the same freedom in the meeting that we have a better chance of getting the job done. >> are you concerned that the secrecy of deliberations will make it difficult for leaders

of congress to build a consensus around what actually is reached to by the committee? >> well, it cannot be a product of secrecy. they may want to find their -- narrow the issues that will be made, the judgments have to be made over, that has to be done in a public way, and i think you're absolutely right. in order for our members to embrace this, they have to know more about it and know why it has come to the place that it has. and we hope that it will be, as i said, big, bold and balanced. but at some point the discussion has to be more public. as you know, i've called for that in my statement when i april -- appointed the members in this room and on other occasions. it's believed by some to weed out or eliminate some of the debate what the real decisions

should be. i say that should be in the public domain. not only should our members know but so that the american people know what is at stake, what the decisions are and how people voted on them. >> your colleague, mr. hoyer, sent a letter to speaker boehner. and the spending priorities to get through the next, you know, set of spending bills here. what do you see in being able to overcome these polarized positions on these riders regarding health care and also the idea that they have to velcro some of these bills together which is something they would not do in their pledge to america last year? >> well, i support the letter that our distinguished whip circulated and sent to our distinguished speaker. and i think it makes all the sense in the world. but just getting back to the table, i think what you suggest

suggests what we can get done at the supercommittee is very important. because -- jurisdiction and cloture and all the rest of that and if we can say was part of the president's american jobs act, part of the recommendations of the president's competitiveness council that is part of the suggestions that have sprung first and foremost from small businesses, thousands of them in our communities across the country. let's get this done now so we have a real jobs component, private sector, developed jobs component and eliminate some of the struggles we will have in the appropriations process. it shouldn't be a place for policymaking and riders. it should be a place where the choices made about our investments of our dollars, of

course, that's policy, too, but it's not the rider policy. so i wish we could just go to the regular order, but not to ignore the tremendous opportunity that exists with the supercommittee for big, to be bold, to be balanced, to have a jobs initiative that rewards entrepreneurialively -- entrepreneurialism, entrepreneurs and owners to achieve the american dream. and we have work to do in that regard. >> what's your reaction from the reports that came out today that the republicans in the supercommittee are supporting a plan that has $1.3 trillion in cuts? >> i haven't seen that, actually. i haven't seen that so i can't address what you are talking about. if it's big and $1.5 trillion,

that is not enough. bold. big in terms of the numbers that we can really do something great for the country in terms of deficit reduction at the same time, bold in terms of recognizing that revenue coming to the treasury comes from job creation and small businesses. and also the public sector. the education of our children, safety of our neighborhoods, that's a very important element in terms of jobs producing consumers, producing demand which then injects in the economy to create jobs. that doesn't sound like anything that would even be in lead with what the bipartisan bowles-simpson, domenici, gang of six, everything that they said. be careful when you cut because you may destroy the momentum for economic growth that we need to have as we go forward.

yes, sir. >> given the -- given the republicans' position on revenue, some question whether they really want to deal. what is your sense? do you think that the republicans want to deal? >> you really have to ask them. but assuming they are responsible leaders, knowing how important this agreement is, the message it will send to the world, to the markets, to the american people, the confidence that it will build, it's a missed opportunity. it's even worse than that if we do not do this. and it is -- it behooves all of us to be as open as possible. i will say to our members, ignostic. we all know what we believe and true to our beliefs. how we get there, if there is a new way of thinking about proposals that are put on the table, bring them on. >> you mentioned a jobs component. do you think it's important for

your conference to support a jobs component? >> i think it's important for the vital for the plan to be successful to do the job it needs to do to turn the economy around. this is about deficit reduction. yes. it's also about job creation. it's also about growth, and we know you cannot reduce the deficit if you are stagnant in terms of growth. so it's not just about my caucus. it's about meeting the needs of the american people in a way that we have expedited procedure. this could get done right away. be signed by the end of the year and the growth part of it could -- from day one instill confidence which is what we needed to displace some of the fear that is out there, businesses to hire more or to take any more risks because of their lack of certainty where we are on this. it's a very exciting time. i know you'll appreciate what

could be done there. i think you saw an example of it in the president's agreement with speaker boehner about democrats being willing to in a big package raise the roof. it's all about our values. forgetting all the politics and everybody's position on this, that and the other thing. we need to educate our children for their own self-fulfillment but also for the competitiveness of our country. that we want to be number one in job creation and innovation against in the classroom. so the education of our children, the creation of good-paying jobs in our country, the retirement of our seniors which is important not only to them but to the success of their families, freeing them up to educate the next generation. the safety and cleanliness of the neighborhoods which our

children grow up and the world -- our national security which is our first responsibility to protect and defend. to do that in a fiscally sound way, this table of 12 supercommittee has a superopportunity to get an important job done for the american people. we stand ready to make an agreement. i also, though, want to come back to the fact that we have to use our time well. i don't know what our facts they need, what more information they need to understand that it has to be big, bold and balanced. so let's just get right to it. i don't know why we have to go to the 23rd. c.b.o. will need a couple of weeks to score, so members will be coming familiar with it as will the american people. but as soon as it passes i hope before the 23rd because that's the day before thanksgiving, you don't want to be here then, do you?

i didn't think so. and then as soon as that is passed, soon as that is suggested to the congress, let's move as quickly as possible to send a message of confidence to the country and to the world, i don't think you want to be here the 23rd of december either, do you? so in any event, regardless of whether we want to be here or not, the fact is we want to be a place in our country where soon as possible, in light of the decisions that we have to make, that we use our time well and that we know while the opportunity is a great one and we want to take advantage of it and exploit the fast track opportunity that is there, our work will not be done then. we want to reignite the american drome. we have work to do. we can't do that with six days in january. with that it's time for me to go vote. i thank you all for being here

this morning. caption cappings [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> leader pelosi's briefing today happening mid morning as the house overwhelmingly approved a bill, repealing a law requiring federal, state and local governments to hold 3% of what contractors are owed until they pay their taxes. federal investigators have found tens of thousands of contractors who owe billions of dollars to the u.s. government. members of both parties said repealing the law would remove impediments to future job creation. they approved the legislation 405-16. it still needs senate approval. but accompanying language approved by the house would make up for that loss by making it harder for hundreds of thousands of lower and middle income people to qualify for medicaid under president obama's health care law. that was approved 262-157. most democrats opposed the

medicaid cuts saying those being denied the assistance needed it. the house is back live on monday. live coverage here on c-span. vice president biden is the key note speaker tomorrow at the florida democratic party convention in orlando. c-span2 will have live coverage at 7:30 p.m. eastern. other speakers include democratic national committee chair, representative debbie wasserman schultz, florida u.s. senator, bill nelson and state democratic party chairman, rob smith. >> this weekend on "book tv" on c-span 2, general westmoreland led forces in vietnam from 1964 to 1968. lewis sorely talks about how we lost. "new york times" bureau chief bill vlasic talks about the unraveling of the car industry in 2008. and then interviews in being

black in america today. also, it's naaqsville weekend on "book tv." we'll feature authors and literary sites all around the city. look for the schedule online at booktv.org. >> all though this headline proved false, dewey's defeat bihari truman was iconic and he continued to be in political history. follow thomas dewey as three-time governor and influencing national politics in the presidential races of eisenhower and nixon, "the contenders," friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> former pakistan president pervez musharraf that america has, "abandoned pakistan and afghanistan," leading to the rise of al qaeda and the taliban in the region. he spoke yesterday at the carnegie endowment for

international peace in washington. this is an hour. >> it's my pleasure to recognize you and your perseverance. i think it's worth -- it's worthwhile because few countries have been as important to each other as the u.s. and pakistan has been since the early 1950's, and yet as anyone who reads a paper or watches the news knows the importance of u.s.-pakistan relations does not make it satisfactory to either country. nor does the two -- does the importance mean that the two governments trust each other. in washington, the feeling is that the relationship in the past was broken because pakistan's pursued interests and activities that it knew were contrary to u.s. interests , the nuclear programs in the 1980's, and that washington would have to pull back. in pakistan it's felt

increasingly that the united states is a fair weather friend and has abandoned pakistan before and it will again. and we see a similar tension here today in the relationship and discourse between the two, a concern that in fact the contrary is enough that there will be yet another separation. there is a number of elements of mutual frustration but mutual importance remains. therefore, it's worthwhile to try to explore ways of building shared purposes and understanding, even if mutual trust is a little too much to expect now. there are few people better qualified to address these issues than former president pervez musharraf. pervez musharraf served in the pakistani army for more than 40 years going to chief of staff. from that position he took power in pakistan in 1999 and

became president in 2001. he continued as president until 2008. he's a civilian today but remains keenly well positioned to address the future of u.s.-pakistan relations. president musharraf has been squeezed on the front end in congress. today he has to go back to the hill, but he has said that he will send assigned time here, make some remarks and then we'll take plentiful questions from you. so with that let me ask you to welcome general musharraf. [applause] [speaking foreign language] >> excuse me for being late.

i was held back at the hill. so with that let me express my gratitude to george and the carnegie endowment of international peace for having invited me and speaking to you. without much adieu i'd like to talk about the subject and i will speak about our region and about pakistan. and within that i must cover the united states-pakistan relations which have achieved some kind of critcalt at this moment. speaking of south asia, i'd like to talk about a little bit of history from 1979 onward because sometimes our memories are short and we forget about what happened in the region. so that will be the case for what we ought to be doing and what we have now.

i will take on the period of 1979 first of all. it was 1979 when soviet union invaded afghanistan and occupied afghanistan. and this created a violation of u.s. policy which believed in containment of soviet expansion and created an army in pakistan because the soviet union was trying to get through pakistan. so there was u.s. and pakistani interest. we assisted afghanistan in fighting against the soviet union. and we decided to launch a jihad. jihad is a holy war. and when i say we, the united states and also pakistan decided to launch a jihad, a

holy, from attracting mujahideen. we had 25,000 to 30,000 mujahideen extended from morocco into asia. it grew to train the taliban from the tribal areas of pakistan and into afghanistan. this country knew for 10 long years this jihad, the holy war with the united states and pakistan existed for the people of afghanistan. the two points i want to highlight here which is very significant, number one, the beliefs of afghanistan abandoned pakistan during this time. they went to europe and united states. the jihad against the soviet union was spearheaded by

militant groups. this is the one point we need to understand. the second point is that when the soviet union occupied afghanistan, a year before that through their own mechanism they opposed the king. afghanistan was held together through an arrangement into a national covenant, a national agreement between all the four major ethnic groups to live together, stay together under the sovereignty of the king. but when the soviet union opposed the king, the glue that held afghanistan together went. it implies a representation of

all the ethnic groups. the major ethnic group being khartoum. i will talk more about it later. so this much more 1979. then comes the period of 1989 to 2001. i call this a period of disaster. period of disaster because somehow the united states decided to change course and abandoned the place. they abandoned that place of pakistan without rehabilitation of refugees armed to the teeth and ready to fight. this was unfortunate and also maybe a shift of policy of pakistan being put under sanctions. it denied military assistance to pakistan and also a policy toward more -- towards india, a

strategic relationship developing with india. so this was a policy shift unfortunately. and also, may i say, with this policy shift, because of this policy shift, abandonment of afghanistan, the mujahide, n 25,000, 30,000, became al qaeda. osama bin laden. it is all products. so the mujahideen become al qaeda now. not only that, in 1996, the taliban emerged. now, why from 1989 to 1996 in afghanistan about 10 ethnic groups, all who are fighting among themselves, they have ravaged the country and destroyed the country, total anarchy in afghanistan, but in 1996 it became taliban.

this continued until 9/11. total ravaging of the country, destruction of the country. as far as pakistan is concerned, another development started. kashmir. its impact on pakistan was there was dozens of mujahideen groups that sprung up from society inside pakistan, volunteers preparing, wanting -- india is part of kashmir to fight the indian army. so therefore in effect why i highlight these elements is that religious militants was introduced by us in 1979, then, having abandoned the place by the united states, it went in a different form. all bodies fighting each other, ethnic groups, taliban everged. and kashmir freedom struggle,

mujahideen in pakistan. really militants from the east, from the west of pakistan, from the east of pakistan, pakistan became a victim. of religious militants. so therefore my deduction, adjustment, pakistan is not a perfect picture of terrorism. until 1979 we were in perfect harmony of the situation. we became a victim of circumstances in the region. then comes 9/11, ladies and gentlemen. after 9/11 there was obviously an attack here. it was most terrible and obvious attack by the united states in afghanistan. my pakistan joining the coalition. now, i was underseeing them. in pakistan's own interest.

more than the u.s. interest. pakistan's own interest was that i realized, i knew that pakistan is a moderate country. pakistan wants to be a progressive, enlightened, moderate country. and talibanization and taliban culture, understanding of islam is not for pakistan. therefore, quite clearly we could not -- we would not have liked to be on the taliban -- and therefore we joined the coalition. now, here i want to highlight a few blunders. 1989 when the united states abandoned the pakistan. of the mujaheddin. the second blunder was in 1996 when the taliban emerged and pakistan was the only country which recognized the taliban. at this moment i remember back in 2000, march of 2000, when

president clinton came to pakistan. he was persuading me not to deal with the taliban. and i told him at that time that i would suggest a different strategy. that we all recognize the taliban and the world should open missions in afghanistan and let us then moderate them from within. certainly i am not with the idea of -- but confronting them or not recognizing them, it is better to recognize them and moderate them from within. that's not doing that was the second blunder. we could have resolved the osama bin laden issue. if there were missions -- if we did not agree to moderation. so that was the second blunder. now, the third blunder after 9/11 was, i would like to

highlight, that after 9/11 with the coalition attack in afghanistan and with northern alliance, the taliban and al qaeda were defeated, it was in the mountains of pakistan. there was a vacuum in afghanistan, a political vacuum. here was the situation where the military had delivered, military of the united states delivered victory to you, but this military victory had to be converted into a political victory. and political victory meaning that the balance of the government to be placed in kabul. now, this was the time when we could have done that. then ethnically balanced,

proportional political balance. 50% of afghanistan is car whom -- khartoum. so why all the taliban was khartoum, i say all khartoum is not taliban. so we must give them the dominant position in government in kabul. it was not done. to date it has not been done. to date, dominant position of governance in afghanistan is by -- [inaudible] it is 8% of afghanistan. now, i personally feel this window of opportunity that i am talking of persisted from 2002 to early 2004, for two long years. taliban, al qaeda were

dismantled, they were disorganized. they were in pakistan. we were acking against them successfully. all the people, al qaeda people from number three downwards, all of them were in pakistan. all of those you see in guantanamo, all action by i.s.i. in pakistan. all. i repeat, not one has been caught in afghanistan by anyone else. so this was done very successfully in pakistan, but then al qaeda went down, taliban resurgeans started in 2004. -- resurgence started in 2004. it started because khartoum was not taken onboard and it went into a political sector. the resurgence carries on even now, unfortunately. so this was the third blunder

where we could have utilized this two-year window of opportunity and we failed. now in 2011 we are trying to talk to the taliban now. the taliban is not -- i don't know which taliban anyone is talking to. one is a taliban. another is a taliban. which taliban are we talking about? it's not very clear. so therefore we are in a complex situation. now, what is the complexity now? there is al qaeda in afghanistan. there is taliban resurgence and dominant position of taliban now. in pakistan also, there are some al qaeda, but mainly

taliban. pakistani talibans who go across and fight in afghanistan also. and also harbor taliban. the third issue as far as pakistan is concerned, they tried to stretch it into certain districts of pakistan. the fourth issue is that there are mujaheddin within pakistan. the groups which initially were oriented towards fighting the indian army in kashmir. the fifth issue is that there is extremism within our society in certain areas. they are rising because they are developing an alliance with the taliban. this is the complexity of the situation in pakistan which we are to deal with. and each element, whether it is al qaeda, the military action only solution, taliban of pakistan, military, political, socioeconomic requirement,

expansion of taliban, trying to spread talibanization, forces only requirement, mujaheddin, orientation to kashmir now in war with taliban. resolution of kashmir dispute and also political action is the requirement. extremism in sour society -- is our society. enlightenment is the issue. so this is the complexity of the problems pakistan faces. but i would be limited if i did not find out what there is there in india. there is mujaheddin activity in kashmir, but there is a rise in the extremism -- and that that is what they should realize themselves. the bombings in bombay, the

finding it is local mujaheddin. so there is local mujaheddin in india. what is the reason. whether thewhat is the reason? unequeal treatment of the muslims or alienation. there is a tendency for a nexus. there is an etin in china. they have come into tribal agencies in afghanistan and joined hands with al qaeda. there is extreme al qaeda. there is al qaeda in the arab peninsula and in yemen and somalia. all trying to have underground

nexus. this is the complexity of the situation. i do not know the scenario here. this is a complex bank. we have to understand the entire complexity of the situation -- this is a complex situation. it is the most unfortunate thing. it is unfortunate because we have to have a commonality of thought and action if we want to defeat terrorism and extremism and if you want to combat terrorism and extremism. the one thing i want to highlight is that one has to look at the strategic plane in pakistan. what is pakistan's policy? what is pakistan's overall strategy and direction where terrorism and extremism is concerned, where al qaeda is

concerned? the pakistan army has suffered over 3000 dead. 350 killed through recent bombings by the taliban. by al qaeda, the same enemy. this isi, may i also point out, this is the same isi that has saved many lives around the world. in 2005, 10 airliners were on transatlantic flights and work to be bombed.

this issue of the containment of liquids and you cannot have 3 milliliters of something in your hand carry it is because of that. they were going to blow them up with liquid explosives. who did this? isi did it. isi is much maligned today. they are the rogue elements. is it possible that strategically they are pro- taliban? this does not stand to logic. i would like to clarify what the hell is happening? there is a problem at the modalities and the ending of

situations. there may be a misunderstanding. there may be a difference of opinion. anyone who tries to comfort this misunderstanding or difference of opinion to reflect that isi an the army are encouraging and encouraging -- encouraging and affecting the army to kill united states' soldiers and bombed embassies -- the reality is suspect. admiral mullen came here. when a person of admiral mullen's stature says they are an extension of isi, he means

the army is against the united states and they are with the taliban. that means pakistan is the enemy. pakistan is not a friend. pakistan is not a coalition member. we have to be discreet and understanding and accurate in this understanding. it is totally against the entrance of the united states and pakistan and the region -- interests of the united states and pakistan and the region. it is the unity of thought and action against the taliban and al qaeda. i would like to bring out why this has happened and what can we do to fix this problem.

point of united states' view, i would like to amend that pakistan needs to clarify the two elements, which lead to this trust and confidence deficit. why was osama bin laden in about a buy. -- abbotabad? was its negligence? i would only like to say that with all of my honest conviction, this is a case of terrible negligence, which ought to be investigated and punished. the second issue -- the bonus of proving this the united states is a difficult thing to prove.

we have to prove it. i know it to be true. it is not a case of complicity. the second issue is a group that is in waziristan. the onus of clarifying lies on pakistan. they must do it. i would like to limit that they are not doing a good job. they must prove to the world -- to admit that they are not doing a good job. is there a problem that the army knows about? is there a problem that the enemy is too strong? why. have to clarify wn

i would be remiss if i did not point out that there are some areas that the united states must understand pakistan. number one, the united states has decided to leave in 2014, leave afghanistan. if i were a leader there, you give me an analysis. what do you see when you leave afghanistan? are you leaving a stable afghanistan or an unstable afghanistan. based on that, i in afghanistan would have to take my own countermeasures. this is important. if you leave afghanistan in an unstable condition or not a fully stable condition -- fully

stable militarily and politically -- then i presume there are two possibilities in my personal analysis. either afghanistan goes back to 1989 fighting against each other, or it goes back to 1996 when it was the pashtun taliban on one side and the northern alliance -- on one side and the northern alliance on the other side. in either case, pakistan has to fend for itself. the adverse impact will be on pakistan. leaders in pakistan must think of securing pakistan.

the united states must sit down with pakistan and discuss these issues. the second element, which need clarification -- i know there are indian sitting here. -- indians sitting here. he is a good friend of mine. my bluntness does not mean i am on popular in india. >> you were born in india. [laughter] >> yes. that is why i say india and pakistan must have peace. i am a strong believer that they must have peace. india is trying to create an anti-pakistan islamacism. i know this through

intelligence. i know this to be a fact. just to give you proof, today in afghanistan, the diplomats, the security and intelligence people all go to india for training. not one has come to pakistan. they go there and they come back and they get indoctrinated against pakistan. over the years since our independence, afghanistan has always been anti-pakistan because the soviet union and india have close relations in afghanistan. the intelligence and the kgb in afghanistan have always been in

cooperation. and they should be. we must not allow this to continue. one must not grudge if isi orders counter measures to protect its own interests. the two intelligence agencies have been on a conflict course since 1960. if i am allowed -- when the leadership from the united states or anywhere says pakistan has not done enough and we need to do more, this is annoying to

a common man in pakistan. we have suffered 35,000 dead. 350 isi people killed. generals killed. general's children killed. what more should pakistan to? we are doing our best. that we needying to do more. we must counter all of these problems. lastly, let me come to pakistan itself. today, pakistan is suffering a dysfunctional government. there is a situation in the right cheek. there is an economic collapse in pakistan. there are also floods.

pakistan is in bad shape. my dismay is that pakistan has the resources and the potential to stand on its own feet. in the 8 years that i government, all of the socio- economic factors were going up. yearning to reach out to the sea on the north. india to our east. we provide the connectivity all trade activity in the region. no trade within this region without pakistan's involvement. that is because of our central location.

we are a country that is self- sufficient in water, self- sufficient in food, self- sufficient even in energy. we have hydro electricity more that our requirements. -- more than our requirements. we have mastered nuclear technologies. we manufacture energy through coal and gas and alternative sources. the only thing we lack is oil. all of the capacity is certainly available. a tremendous amount of natural resources. what is the problem? we are economically self sustainable. the proof of it is, when i came in in 1999 -- in 2006, pakistan was declared one of the next 11

economically viable countries of the world. after the bric four -- brazil, russia, india, china. how did this happen? did i have a magic wand? it was the resources of pakistan. we utilize our own resources and our own potential. to control the budget imbalance and the budget deficit, the fiscal deficit, the balance of payments deficits by increasing our earnings, reducing our expenditures. my i say the debt to gdp ratio, which was 103%, was reduced to

52%. the per capita income rose to over $100,000 in six years. why is it that the same country, the same people, the same resources in 1990 -- in 2007, we are in 11th. now we are going down toward disaster again. the answer lies that there is a leadership vacuum. it is the governance that fails pakistan. government and leaders are showing up by the political system. by the elections. it is here that we fail. no government elected in a democratic way has done good

governance in pakistan. irresponsibility of a leader, development of the people, develop and of the state. this is what any leader in any government have to do. otherwise, the people reject them. that is the problem of pakistan. no good leadership. not cool -- not doing well for the people. the problem is pulling up good leadership through the political process. we are heading toward an election in 2013, when a half years away. if we do not bring about a political change and changing the political status quo, people of pakistan and rejecting those who have been tried, and tested, and failed, we will continue on the downward slide. we have to produce another

political all tested in pakistan that can understand the problems of pakistan, and is honest enough to deal with pakistan's problems and determination. it is for this reason that i am comfortable giving lectures. my interests -- is less comfortable for myself. i have decided to join politics. we have to create a third political organization with other like-minded people.

i will try to do that. that is why i have entered politics and have decided to go back to pakistan in march of 2012, or earlier if i am to spring a military supplies and deception. that is what i intend to do. i believe is better to try and fail than to go down without trying. for the sake of the country, i will take a chance. that is all i have to say. thank you. [applause] >> we are going to take questions now. when i call on you, please briefly say who you are. let's start with this lady in the thick row.

give a microphone to each of them. -- in the fifth row. >> i am a television reporter for voice of america. on one of our english language shows, you said democracy is a mind set and you did a lot of things for democracy. why has your party not been able pakistanit the s soapbox. >> i never said democracy is a mind-set. i said dictatorship is a mind- set. i believe always and i continue to believe in democracy.

most of the civilian governments in pakistan -- it is not a matter of whether i am in uniform or not. i did so much for nurturing democracy. democracy does not start and end at having elections and a political government. it starts with how you govern. it is the essence of democracy. empowerment of the people and women and the media. that is freedom. i did all of that. coming to your next question. why do the people not support? i would be mad if i go back without the people's support. i know how much support there is and how much there is not. i am keeping a pulse.

in march 2007, my support was 78%. in one year, it dipped. i resign from my presidentship. many people were crying in pakistan. the men who were filming me or recording me or cry and right in front of me. it was a great reception -- or crying right in front of me. there is support. there is certainly support for me in pakistan. it i am to believe today that there is so much support that i win the next election, i would be in denial. i am a realistic person. i must not over assess myself or under assess myself. there is support and i am now

trying to build that support through organizing my party. i have already done that at the four provinces. we have organizing committees in the 52 of the district in pakistan. i will go to the 6500 union councils of pakistan. in one year, nobody else has gone from scratch with a new party. let me show you, i am giving it a good try. i can never be sure that i can develop that kind of support that i will win alone. but i will give it a try. >> i am a documentary filmmaker. when you were elected president -- when you are elected

president in 2013, would you take a new approach to these problems in kashmir? will you take steps to resolve this with india. ? will you make efforts to bring these two under control? >> thank you very much. thank you for same when you get elected. it means you are sure i will get elected. it should be if i get elected. thank you for all of your confidence in me. on kashmir, let me say that it was a passion with me to resolve and bring india and pakistan closer. when we had a cricket match between india and pakistan, the

city was quite anti-india. the people in pakistan were cheering the indian team. i was encouraging this interaction. the issue with kashmir have to be resolved. i think they can be signed yesterday. we just need leadership to say sign it and finish it off. kashmir is a thought. -- kashmir is a problem. the militarization, giving maximum so if governance-- de

militarization, giving maximum self governance. we were moving forward. we need to do that again. i believe in peace. it is to the advantage of india and pakistan. i had banned the mujahideen in my time. they have great public sympathy. they need to be dealt with in a sensitive matter. we will pull the rug under their feet. it is easier said than done. we need to handle them with

care. they are well organized. when we had the earthquake in 2005, they have an organization. it was probably the best ngo and became popular because of the relief efforts they have. a lot of people were suggesting, let's ban them. i said, if we do that -- they have helicopters called the engines of mercy -- if they shoot one of them down, no relief would be possible in india. we have to handle these things

with understanding and skill. we would like to do that again. >> i would like to follow up on the kashmir question. there was a lot of progress made in the back channels with india. what you and others say about the importance of afghanistan and the great concern about pakistan and india's role in afghanistan -- even if you formalize an agreement on cashmere, where we beat-- kashmire -- kashmir, where would afghanistan thing in? >> i have always believed that state relations have more to do with interpersonal relations between leaders. why was there so much trust and confidence between the united states and pakistan when i was

there? that was because i had excellent communication and a personal relationship with president bush. when to -- i went to colin powell's house. i could pick up the phone and talk to president bush. on pakistan and india, i developed a good interpersonal relations with both prime ministers. i will add without any reservations that i found both of them to be good people. i found both of them flexible. very sincere. we were moving forward. with this relationship, i am sure we can address all issues. what i said about afghanistan

is certain knowledge. i would not mention anything that is in doubt. i know this is happening. if leadership has relations, you will attract them to the common good of everyone. we need to address it. we need all three to develop an understanding, pakistan, afghanistan, and india. >> i got to go back and forth. go ahead. pakistanith the spectator. my question is regarding shariff. he was twice democratically

elected. he was pro-business, relaxing the business law so that pakistan became attractive to foreign investment, which resulted in more jobs for the people. even today, it is one of the most popular, viable leaders and loved by the people. did it concern you that you deposed him without any democratic process whatsoever? negatively byd the international community. >> your figures are totally distorted. in 1999, i came on the scene.

$400 million is the investment coming to pakistan. do you know what it exports workable day noaa our revenue collection? -- do you know our revenue collection? this is the performance of shariff? poverty was at 34%. we brought it to 70%. find out from -- we brought it to 17%. do not believe me. go and find out. go and find out about industry. we had 2.9% televisions.

our televisions are over 70%. t know what people were doing? they work -- do you know what people were doing? they were coming to my office. please understand what was happening in pakistan and now. coming to the second part, that he is a popular man. when benazir came, she was assassinated and he came back. you are right. he was popular. with the job they are doing in the biggest province, the villages but only two hours of

electricity. there is total mis-governance in punjab, there is a sharp decline in his popularity. in south punjab, he is almost out. his base is not in central punjab. he is not as popular as you think. also, may i say -- i call him a closet taliban. [laughter] he is an extremist. those in punjab are now his political partners. if he comes to govern in pakistan, he would be a bigger disaster than the present

situation. >> we would be glad to host a debate if he comes to washington. >> he will never come. you call him and i will sit right here. >> i will call on you. i call on this gentleman that there. >> is what with the american jewish committee. we were privileged to give a donation of $100,000 to pakistan to send kosher meals to the affected area. in recent years, we have reached out to the american community and have tried to reach out to the pakistan-american community. when you were president, the

foreign minister met with the foreign minister of israel. -- foreign minister of palestine. the israelis and many israeli jews saw pakistan as a bridge between the israeli jewish world and the islamic world. >> is there a question? >> would you see pakistan being the bridge between israel and palestine? >> or you the one i met at the american jewish congress -- the one i met at the american jewish congress when i spoke their? -- there?

this is a double answer. reject extremism. for the west and the united states, solve political disputes with the muslim world and assist in the socio-economic development of the muslim world. within this strategy, i believe we must have peace. if we are going to have peace, we have to resolve the palestinian society dispute. al qaeda and all of this activity with hezbollah and hamas -- they are politically motivated people, those who

carried out 9/11. they were probably people who were antagonized at this israel- u.s. relation and anti- palestinian attitudes. as far as i am concerned and as far as pakistan is concerned, we need to have balanced relations. i commented once that we need to review our relations as we progress forward on the resolution of the palestinian society dispute. i addressed the american jewish congress. i invited the president to invite the foreign minister to turkey and my foreign minister. they should meet.

if they come to a dispute resolution, i would like to play a role. in 2006, i initiated a different peace process. on one side, in the muslim world, the united states, they have become unacceptable to the muslim world. there is someone held in certain a scheme in pakistan and the muslim world to play a role -- certain esteemed in pakistan and the moslem world to play a role. we include non-arab muslim clerics. that was turkey, pakistan, indonesia, and malaysia.

i went around to develop this group to deal with the palace stay in -- palestine-israeli dispute. israel would have more confidence in the four that i spoke up. and israel would have more confidence. we could make some progress. we have to think out of the box. insulin for peace as far as pakistan is concerned with all countries and trying to resolve all disputes. -- i am for peace as far as pakistan is concerned with all countries and trying to resolve all disputes. >> we are running out of time. >> i will take my time because i was late. i will take whatever questions or whatever time you want to

take. >> i am from cnn. do you think pakistan is doing enough in working with the international community in securing its nuclear facilities? >> nuclear facilities? >> should they be more open and? >> pakistan -- should they be more open? >> the pakistan nuclear capability is in direct relation to the perception, to the exits the intel track that pakistan has always pursued. -- existential track that

pakistan has always pursued. the united states or the other powers that be think pakistan to be denuclearized. that goes against pakistan's interests. the people of pakistan will never allow it. as far as iaea, are they secure? we suffered in our prestige. after 2000 when i came on the scene, the first thing i did was to establish controls.

we created a strategic planning division headed by a general. we took away all of being autonomy from the science organizations. money used to be given to them. security was their own. nobody was overseen. proliferation was possible. proliferation is no longer possible. i took over those assets. i created an army strategic force command of 20,000 men of the army. it is the core of the army with two divisions with a number of brigades and regiments'.

-- regiments. the army has disperse them and put them in places that nobody can access. a lot of misconception is there and that india and pakistan were on a confrontation course in 2002. there is no hand on the nuclear button. in our case, thank god, our weapons are now mated. even during confrontations. there is nothing like a compulsive man.

that is not the case. for this long answer, let me say that pakistan's nuclear capability is the pride of pakistan. we go along with the world on all six cards. do not single out pakistan. it will not be acceptable to pakistan. >> may i ask a follow-up? if you are elected president, he would be a civilian leader in that a set -- you would be a nuclear -- you would be a civilian leader. under what circumstances will you make a decision to decide, the you have enough weapons? as a civilian, would you have

actual authority in that discussion? >> i commanded an army for 40 years. they will never forget that. but that aside, it is not correct that the army controls everything. the chairman is the president of pakistan. the prime minister is there. and appointed ministers are there. and because it commands in it. when we started this program, it was started in 1954. that made our military strategy. our strategy was a strategy of minimum defensive deterrence. in 1974, this minimum defense

and deterrence become untenable. pakistan decided to go nuclear. >> it was in 1972 after the war with bangladesh. after the 71 war was when the program started. >> the nuclear program was always there. the enrichment of uranium started in 1977 or 1978. in that time, since secrecy was required, it was under the president of pakistan, who happen to be a military man.

he used the army commander, the army chief. the course has been following a normal course. the development is through the strategic planning division, which is headed by a retired general. it is overseen by the nca. this is the best practice that we acquired from the war. that is what we have done. >> this gentleman here and then back there. >> thank you.

i do not know what to address u.s. a great general or a great president. as far as afghanistan is concerned, hamid karzai has accused pakistan of sending terrorism to afghanistan. he was getting all of the billions of dollars.

as far as the relations are concerned, the number 1 enemy of pakistan is that india, but the united states. what can you make out of these things? osama bin laden was found in your back yard. >> thank you very much. first of all, let me thank him. the statement that he would support pakistan against the united states is preposterous. i find this idea very

preposterous. is he imagining some kind of war between the united states and pakistan? i would not like to answer this. it is not an insane idea. god forbid. this can never happen. thank you. look after the taliban and al qaeda. pakistan will look after itself. the second issue was -- >> about the u.s. and india. >> you said about osama bin laden being found and antipathy against the united states. that is unfortunate. if you go to the massive level, there is antipathy against the

united states. until 1989, we were strategic partners. everything would go through pakistan. it is beyond 1989 net everything happens, the abandonment, -- 1989 that everything happens. the question that was asked of me everywhere i went, what makes you think you would not be dit ched by the united states? this is the question they used to ask me. india is partisan in its approach on nuclear issues. it is the sensitivity of the man in the street.

pakistan has developed nuclear bombs because of its existential track. is there a problem with projecting your power in the region and the world? our nuclear is the sense of. your nucleus may be offensive. yes, pakistan is being told to control and stop its nuclear program. unfortunately, the people of pakistan has been -- have developed this antipathy. at the government level, at the leadership level, at the intellectual level, everyone understands the importance of the pakistan-u.s. relationship.

pakistan's relations are brought in context. not only is their military cooperation -- there military cooperation, but there is a socio-economic element in th there. everyone understands that the pakistan-united states relationship has to be strong. it is antipathy that needs to be corrected. it takes time. it takes good leadership. >> osama bin laden. were you surprised? >> yes. years.therefor for 5 i am not convinced that he was

five years. if he was there for five years, it was not in my tenure. as far as i am concerned, i am 500% sure i did not know. if anyone believes, i do not know. i am clear that there was no complicity. is what clear that the army would not have hidden this from me. the soy from them and they are from me. -- i am from them and they are from me. there are officers who are in touch with me. this is not possible that the army could do anything where they were not calling the policy.

>> mr. president, thank you very much. they all love you for hanging in there. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama said today that your's debt plan -- europe's debt plan offers a chance for debt resolution. it will boost the region's

weapons against market turmoil. the president said economic instability in europe has been a drag on the u.s. economy. joe biden will be the keynote speaker at the florida democratic party convention. also speaking will be democratic committee chairwoman debbie wasserman schultz. >> i do not want every story to be 1800 words. >> last month, jill abramson became the executive editor of the new york times "." -- "the new york times."

>> i would like to see a variety of stories. >> she will discuss her career, her new book, and the future of "the times" on "q & a." >> spend this weekend in knoxville, tennessee, with book tv and american history tv and look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of the marble city. on book tv on c-span2, the university of tennessee's body farm, four acres of decomposing human remains. dr. william bass on a real-life c.s.i., and a look at "roots"

author alex haley. and on american history tv on c-span3, a visit to the sequoia birth place museum. how an indian silversmith created a system of writing for the cherokee language. also a visit to secret city, oak ridge national laboratory spokesman on its part in the atomic bond. and a talk about knoxville, it's history and future. back on book tv and american history tv in knoxville, tennessee. >> the heads of operations at the four military branches testified today before a house armed services subcommittee. they talked about the impact of budget cuts that will go into

effect unless there are other recommendations. the committee met yesterday and did not come to an agreement. armed services chairman buck mckeon got emotional over the potential impact of those cuts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. not to drag this out but i had a call several weeks ago from a young man that i watched grow up. his dad is a good friend of mine. he's an air force officer, a physician stationed down in san antonio. i guess he'd been talking to his dad and his dad told him to call me and he said he's been in 12 years, he's looking at re-enlisting and he wanted to know what can i expect? what is my future? what will be my retirement? he's enjoying the service, but he's very concerned.

and i couldn't tell him. you know. i don't know what his future is. because i don't know all of this we're going through. i was down at camp lejeune a couple of weeks ago, i was visitting with some marines and their wives. the wives spoke up and they're very concerned, same questions. what happens on -- can we look forward to a career? i've seen this -- i've seen this movie before. when i was pretty new in the congress, i was going up to visit west point and i had a lieutenant colonel with me they don't let us go anywhere alone. and his dad had been the chief of the army. no, his grandpa had been the chief of the army. his dad had been the youngest brigadier in the army.

and then he suffered a stroke and that ended his career. this lieutenant colonel, his whole life, that was all he ever wanted to do. was serve in the military. and he was being riffed because his class at west point, there were about three-year classes, the draw down under bush and clinton earlier in the 1990's and he didn't want to leave he didn't have a choice. and when we got to west point, we were greeted by a lieutenant colonel there. he was also being riffed. it didn't matter as much to him. i mean, he didn't want to leave but to the first guy, it meant a lot. and i thought, that does break faith, as far as i'm concerned. you start somebody out on a career you send them to west point or indianapolis -- or

annapolis, or air force academy and you make certain promises, then you break those promises, that's basically what's happened. i think about these young men that are going outside the wire over in afghanistan every day on patrol, and if they're having to think about what's happening about my future instead of concentrating on i.e.d.'s or snipers or am busheses or not being able to be totally focused on their job, that puts them at risk today. needlessly. and i just --

>> mr. chairman, we thank you for those comments and the passion you have for our men and women who serve in our military. >> and we are going to show you the entire hearing now as military branch operations chiefs testify about the possible impact on proposed budget cuts on readiness. it's about an hour and 50 minutes. >> i want to welcome all our members and our distinguished panel of experts to today's hearing focused on how we maintain readiness in an age of austerity or more particularly, what's the risk to the national defense of our country if we continue to make some cuts to defense we hear being discussed

in washington. i want to thank our witnesses for being with us this morning. i know several of you had to cancel long-standing personal commitments to be with us this morning. i appreciate your willingness to testify before the subcommittee once again on this most important topic. in the interest of time, because we know we could have votes coming any time and we may have to recess and do those votes and then come back because this is important and we want to get all of this on the record, i'm going to dispense with any normal opening remarks. since ms. bordallo is not here, we'll dispense with her remarks and have them put in the record. i would like to, however, look at a procedural matter we use in this committee. we discussed we'd like to dispense with the five-minute rule and depart from regular order so members may ask questions in the course of discussion. i think this will provide a round table type forum and enhance dialogue on these important issues. we would like to proceed with

standard order, however, if any member has a question pertinent to the matter being discussed at the time, please seek acknowledgment and wait to be recognized by the chair. we plan to keep it to the standard five minutes, however, i don't want to curtail productive dialogue. i ask that we dispense with the five-minute rule and proceed as described. without objection, it is so ordered. gentlemen, we are delighted to have you with us today. we have the honor of having general corelli with us, he's the vice chief of the united states army, he's been such since august 4, 2008, he's commanded at every level from platoon to corps. he's commanded the united states european command, the director of operations and readiness and mobilization at headquarters, department of the army. we also have admiral ferguson. admiral, we're delighted to have you with us. he's vice chief of naval operations, navy personnel

command and he's chief of legislate i have affairs and chief of naval personnel. also, general joseph f. dunford, jr., assistant commandant of the marine corps. general dunford has gone through the marine corps amphibious warfare school as a distinguished career and we appreciate the knowledge he brings to the panel. last but not least is general breedlove, we appreciate you being with us. he's the choice chief of staff of the u.s. air force. he's a georgia tech graduate and general we enjoyed as a graduate of the university of virginia playing you the other week and it may be the one bright spot we'll have this year but thanks for your help and cooperation in that. he's also a fwradge watt of arizona state university -- graduate of arizona state university where he had his master of science degree and the national war college. without further ado we want to

get to your opening statements. we're pleased to have the ranking members join us now -- ranking member has joined us now. we have with us the ranking member of the full committee. we talked about dispensing with our opening statements and putting them in the record. ms. bordallo: mr. chairman, i'd like to welcome our witnesses today and place my statement in the record. >> thank you. mad lean and i work -- madeleine and i work closely as partners and i appreciate the work she does. today we're going to put your statement in the record and they've already been made in the record. as i told all of you before, we want you to tell us the importance of what we have. i'm going to set each of you up with a question, but expound on it with your testimony, anything you want to say. we'll start, general corelli, with you. as you know, we have heard --

we've already had $465 billion in cuts to national defense in the country. some people talk about an additional $600 billion coming. there are discussions that that's going to significantly reduce the force that we have in the united states army. general, you have been serving for a long time. you have served in almost every capacity in the army. when we talk about risk and the risk that these cuts could have, sometimes we talk about them in tells of institutions and missions but it comes down to men. you have seen that his tarically what have these cuts done to the risk to your men that serve under you? if you'd address that question and any other questions you'd like for your opening statement. we now turn it over to you. >> chairman forbes, chairman mckeon, ranking member bordallo, i thank you for allowing me to be here today. these are for sure challenging

times, you've heard me say that before. we are past a decade of war with an all-volunteer force. we've always had volunteer this is in our force but we've never done this before, never fought for 10 years, never fought with an entirely volunteer force. that force is amazingly resilient but at the same time, it is strained. its equipment is strained. soldiers are strained. families are strained. but they've been absolutely amazing over these 10 years of war. i'd like to leave you with three key points in my opening statement. first is we recognize budget cuts and corresponding reducks to force structure will be made. however, we must make them responsibly. so that we do not end up with either a hollowed out force, and i can expand on that later on, or an unbalanced force. our nation is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. we recognize we must all do our part. we are continuing to identify efficiencies, we worked very,

very hard on our capability portfolio review process, which have found many of those efficiencies, and we will book many, many more. when we appeared before the committee in july, we were looking at cuts in the vicinity of $450 billion over 10 years. if the army's portion of that cut is in historical percentages at about 26%, that will be tough but as the secretary of the army and chief of staff of the army have said, it will be doable. i'm the vice, i get paid to worry about things, i worry our cut may be higher than that and that causes me some angst. above and beyond that, we'll directly and deeply impact every part of our army and our ability to meet our national security objectives and effectively protect our country against all threats. whatever cuts are made carry risks. historically, it's amazing to sit here as the vice chief of staff where so many of the 32

before me or 31 before me have sat at a similar time in our history and had to make some of the same arguments, answer some of the same questions. i'm sure that was true in the debate after the war, i was in annapolis and saw a memorial for the war. that was world war i. y cut our army, and then had to grow it for world war 2. then we cut our army again, down to about 30,000 soldiers. we ended up with the korean war. in the korean war, the first battle of that war was for the army very famous, task force smith. an ill-equipped, ill-trained force that had infantry battalions -- battalions were incomplete and the results were predictable. it's interesting to note that

general bradley, when cuts were talked about after world war ii, supported them he went on to say that the strength of the military depended upon the economy and we must not destroy that economy. but in his autobiography, after the korean war, bradley wrote, my support of this decision, my belief that significantly higher defense spending would probably wreck the economy, was a mistake. perhaps the greatest mistake i made in my post-war years in washington. i lived through an army that came out of vietnam and did some of the same kind of things and for 10 to 12 years we had to rebuild that army. these questions, these decisions have been made before. there's a tendency to believe at the end of a war that we'll never need ground forces again. i tell you that we've never got that right. we have always required them. we don't have the imagination

to always be able to predict exactly when that will be. my final point is, whatever decisions are made, whatever cuts and reductions are directed, we must, we must ensure we do not lose the trust of soldier the brave men and women who have fought for these last 10 years and their families. mr. chairman, i thank you and look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. we hope to get into that in a little more depth as the hearing goes on and what the compensation cuts could mean to your force. thank you for that. admiral ferguson. you are facing a tough time now, as we tee up your opening remarks, you're looking at a navy as we understand the facts that we can argue about numbers, but china has more ships in their navy than we have in ours, according to admiral willard. through dollars and cents,

you've got $367 million shortfall in your maintenance budget because of dwhrears haven't given to you. we recognize that on surface to surface missiles, we have a distinct challenge between chinese missiles and our missiles because we haven't given you dollars we need for technology. in addition to that, we see the projection for our subs that could put us in the next 10 years where china would have 78 subs to roughly 32 for ours. we can argue around the edges of those but what do these cuts mean to you, this $465 billion we've already done, to the men and women serving under you in the united states navy, what would it mean if we put additional cuts? anything you want to put in your opening remarks, we want to hear from you now. >> thank you, chairman "forbes," -- chairman forbes,

chairman mckeon, ranking member bordallo. it's my honor to testify before the committee, to represent the men and women who stand watch around the globe today. my appreciation on their behalf for congressional support of them and their families. in an era of declining budgets, we are ever-mindful of the past. taken in sum or parts, low personnel quality, aging equipment, degradeation of material readiness will inevitably lead to declining readiness of the force. we remain committed to maintaining our navy as the world's pre-eminent maritime force and to do so we must sustain a proper balance among the elements of current readiness and to the -- and those long-term threats to our national security. those elements of readiness may p simply stated. sustain the force structure that possesses the required

capabilities to face the threat, man it with high-quality personnel with requisite skills and experience, support it with spare parts and weapon, sustain the industrial base that sustains that force and exercise it to be operationally proficient and relevant. so our objective and challenge in this period of austerity will be to keep the funding for current and future readyness in balance and holding acceptable level of risk in the capacity of those forces to meet the requirements of the combatant commanders. how we shape ourselves must be driven by strategy. we feel that's extraordinarily important. the cults that are contained that you discuss, chairman forbes, we will accept as part of that some reductions in capacity, it will affect certain areas of presence that we have around the world, our response times, but the decisions will be tough, but they're executeable. we think that in looking at the

strategy review going on in the department, we can meet those challenges and we will meet those challenges as contained in the act. we intent to take a measured abroach and we'll look at both efficiencies in our overhead, infrastructure, personnel costs, force structure and modernization. absent the support of the congress, and you alluded to the impact of sequestration, that impact on our industrial base and our navy would be immediate, severe, and long lasting and fundamentally change the navy we have today. so mr. chairman, congressman boar tallow, member os they have committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering your questions as we go forward. >> thank you, admiral ferguson. general dunford, you have also served your entire career with men and women under you in the marines and one of the things that a lot of people believe is that once we get out of iraq and we get out of afghanistan,

you'll have all the resources you need to do everything you need to do around the world. if you look at the cuts that have already been made and we look at these potential cuts from sequestration, the projections are your force could go down to as low as 150,000 men and women. if that were to occur, what would that impact be on you and would you be able, even if we were out of iraq and afghanistan to conduct a single contingency around the world? and with that, if you'd answer that question and any opening remarks you have, general, the floor is yours. >> chairman mckeon, chairman forbes, ranking member bordallo, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to appear before you to talk about the readiness of the marine corps and thank you for your support of the marines. as we meet this morning, almost 30,000 around the world doing what must be done 20,000 of those in afghanistan, i want to assure you those marines remain our number one priority. with your support, they are

well trained and ready to do the mission. like you, i recognize the nation faces an uncertain security environment and some difficult fiscal challenges. there's no doubt we have tough decisions to make. to support the difficult decisions we have to make, we've recently this year gone through a structure review effort, shared the results of that with the committee in the past and would offer that that framework would allow us to provide recommendations to the secretary of defense and frame the issues similar to ones that the gentleman asked as his opening statement. we're work hard to account for every dollar. we're looking to make sure that every dollar is well spent. in the end, we know we're going to have to make cuts. as we provide our input, i think we need to address three critical considerations, strategy, balance, and keeping faith. with regard to strategy, we simply need to know what nation requires us to do and what the resources available -- with the resources available we'll build

the best force available to do it. the commandant is going to use what we learned in the structure review effort to make recommendations. with regard to balance, we don't want to create a hollow force. we've seen that in past drawdowns. like the general mentioned, i've seen that personal any 1970's as a young lieutenant. we don't want to go back to where we have an imbalance between training, equipment and modernization efforts. what we're committed to is regardless of the size of the marine corps at the end of the day, every unit in the united states marine corps will be ready to respond to today's crisis today. finally, we have to keep falte with our people. we need to do that because it's the right thing to do and it's necessary for us to maintain a high quality, all-volunteer force. in all of our deliberations we need to send a loud and unmistakable message tat contributions that our men and women have made over the past 10 years are recognized and appreciated. and there's certainly many different deaf anythings of keeping faith and i think

something attributed to george washington gives us a good baseline for a discussion this morning. washington said the willingness of future generations to serve shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early warred were treated and appreciated by our nation. those words to me seem as relevant to me as they were over 200 years ago. chairman forbes to get back to your specific question, what would happen if the marine corps was at 150,000. when we went through the first structure review effort, we came up with a size of 186,800. that's a single major contingency operation force. that force can respond to only one major contingency. 150,000 would put us below the level necessary to support a single contingency. the other thing i would think about is what amphibious forces have done over the past years, supporting operations in afghanistan with fixed wing aviation, responding to the crisis with pirates on the magellan star, supporting

operations in libya, supporting our friends in the philippines and japan and frankly at 150,000 marines, we'll have to make some decisions. we will not be able to do those kinds of things on a day-to-day basis, we will not meet the requirements for forward employed or engaged forces, we won't be there to assure our potential friends -- to assure our allies and we won't be there to contain small crises before they become major conflagrations. at 150,000 marine, i would offer there would be some significant risk, both institutionally inside the marine corps because we'll be spending faster and causing our marines to do more with less but perhaps more importantly, the responsiveness we'll have to come pat tant commanders contingency response will be degraded. >> thank you, general. general breedlove, we thank you for working in your schedule to be here. often times we hear everybody talking about leaving iraq and afghanistan, but we know when

the air force, when everybody else might come home, the air force oftentimes does not come home. they still have to stay there an continue to do operations. i'd like to have any comments you have about what these cuts have made to the air force already and what future cuts could do and the floor is yours. >> thank you, chairman forbes. chairman mckeon, congresswoman bordallo, thanks for the opportunity to talk to you today about 69,000 -- 690,000 plus proud airmen who serve as part of a joint team you see before us. these are challenging times, the air force has been at war more than two decades. we have fought alongside the team in afghanistan since 9/11. we went to the gulf, the gulf war in the beginning of the 1990's and didn't come home to your point, sir. quite often when the nation comes back from a war, we leave significant assets to overwatch remaining forces to provide

support to those who would remain behind in the regions and that was witnessed, as you know, in northern fly watch and northern -- and southern watch. and the air force stayed there and kept a pretty high up tempo. they are challenging times and the tempo is exacerbated by the fact that our air force, since the opening of the gulf war, has 34% fewer aircraft than we starred the war with and 26% fewer people. so the tempo we face, which we don't see a change in in the future, puts a pretty big stress on the force. that has led to a slow but steady decline in our unit readiness as we have discussed with this committee before. we have tried to reset in the middle of that to pick up new missions. the air force has built mission inside as we have been asked to support this joint team in

intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. we have been asked to build an increased capacity in special operations. and we will continue to meet both of those requirements as part of this joint team and answer the call in the future. all the while, the strain put on our force in the need to recapitalize our aging fighter, tanker, and bomber fleets. we're flying the oldest fleet the air force has ever flown and we do need desperately to get the recapitalization in this age of fiscal austerity. the department of defense we know will have to be part of this recovery and the air force will play its part in that recovery. our goal is to do two things. you heard several of my predecessors remark on them. first, maintain a credible military force. we expect it will be smaller and quite frankly much smaller in some areas. but we need to remain credible and capable force as we get

smaller. second, to avoid becoming a hollow force. like joe and pete mentioned, i was in the air force in the 1970's and saw what a hollow air force looked like. flight line with airplanes that couldn't fly and buildings with many people who had no training or ability to go out and accomplish a mission if the airplanes had flown. we don't want to go there again. we will get smaller to remain capable with the forces that are left behind. many of the challenges we see will come on our people and on the backs of our people. as we get smaller and as we expect the tasking does in the change as we mentioned, in many cases we stay behind when there's a peace dividend. the deploy to dwell times will only increase and i think the tempo on our proud reserve component, which is an integral part of our air force will have to increase because ever more important in a diminishing force.

finally if the sequester cuts envisioned are allowed to take place, we'll have to go beyond just getting to our capacity. we believe we'll have to then begin to look at what are the capabilities that we'll have to shed and no longer offer to this joint team. a reduction in size would reduce the number of bases that we could support, the number of airmen we could keep on board the air force, the impact to the size of our industrial base will certainly be important, just as it is to the navy and then finally much as joe has mentioned, as we downsize, some of the first mentioned we'll have to shed is the engagement we'll see around the world where we preclude further conflict or build allies that will help us to come fight will not be able to make those contributions. i look forward to your questions, mr. chairman. >> thank you, general. as each of you know, this is probably the most bipartisan committee in congress. we work together very, very well and it's a privilege to

have all of our members here. we're also honored today, we have the chairman of the full committee and part of the reason we serve in such a bipartisan and effective means is because of his leadership. he's graciously said he'd like for our members to be able to ask questions, i don't think he's going to ask any question, i'd like to defer to him for any comments he might like to make. mr. chairman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and your comments. i think that the cuts that you're all working hard to put into place, i met with admiral mullen probably a month and a half ago, and he said that he had assigned to the chiefs $465 billion in cuts, that came from the president's speech of cutting $400 billion and the $78 billion they'd found and the $100 billion that you had gone through in efficiencies and what we did in the c.r. it's cumulation of -- it's an

accumulation of a lot of things, it's hard to get an exact number. when the secretary came up, he was using $450 plus, i've heard $489 billion, it's between $450 billion and $500 billion that you're dealing with that we'll start hearing the details on in january. i think many in congress and i think most people in the country do not understand, they're focused on the super committee and the $500 billion to $600 billion we'll be hit with if they're not able to do their work but they don't realize the extent of the cuts you've been working on now for a period of time and that will be -- will be hitting us next year. we're talking -- we've had five hearings. at the full committee level. not to mention the subcommittee level. to try to get a handle on this and try to educate the rest of the congress and the rest of

the populace of the country as to what really is going to happen to our military. the first five hearings were the impact of -- on the actual military. the men and women that you serve with. those who were laying their life on the line right now as we talk. i've seen in my lifetime lots of drawdowns. i've never seen us do it when we're fighting a war. so i think it's really incumbent upon us to try to get the word out, the message, to see if this is really what people expect. when i go home and talk to people and tell them what's happening, they say, that isn't what we wanted. we wanned to get troops out of germany or cut the waste or get the troops home from korea or somewhere. they do not realize the extent of what has already been done, let alone what will happen with that super committee. then yesterday, we had another hearing that had -- where we had three economists and they

talked about the financial impact to our economic -- our economy. when we're already in a fragile economy with 9% unemployment rate, they're talking about job lesses of $1.5 -- of 1.5 million, increasing the unemployment rate up over 10%. i think when all the members start looking at their districts and their homes and the lost jobs, the combination of all of this i'm hoping will make us sit back and take another breath and say, wait a minute is this what we want to do? this economic problem we're in right now that we've been building over decades, cannot be solved in one budget cycle. i think we have to have some real understanding of what we're doing here and is this really what we want to do. given the risks we see facing

us around the world. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you, and i thank you for being here and it looks like we're going to be having votes right away. which is unfortunate. but i'm hopeful we return after the votes. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to defer all my questions to the end to get to as many members as we can. i'd like to recognize the gentlelady from guam for questions she may have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope everyone bears with me. i've -- i have a very bad cold. i have a couple of questions, i understand we're coming back for a second round? all right. my first question, as i pointed out in my opening statement, the admiral stated in july that further the efficiencies and budget cuts would be determined through a comprehensive strategic review. i'm asking to what extent are each of the services involved

with o.s.d. in this review? and without a strategic plan in place, why are we proceeding with arbitrary cuts? why not wait until such a plan is developed. i ask this because i do not understand the rationale for the reducks in force in naval facilities command pacific or the deact vagse of the two seabee battalions. we start with admiral ferguson. >> logistically, they've called a vote. our members need to go to the vote, we'll be coming back afterwards. ms. bordallo's question will be the last ones we take before we go to the vote. if you'd like to answer? >> ms. bordallo, by -- all the services are participating at the service chief and vice chief level at the ongoing strategy review as is the joint staff. those discussions that are

ongoing presently are looking at the budget submissions that the services have done and then looking and they were primarily given a physical target as you alluded to for us to reach. now they're looking at those fiscal submissions and looking at the overall strategy as we go forward. we'll take action as emake those decisions prior to the budget submission about balancing between those portfolios in terms of both capabilities and capacity and does it meet the strategy that we see going forward. >> so what you're saying is the reviews are not completely finished, is that correct? >> that is correct. from our perspective, the decisions regarding the final form of the budget submission are not completed yet. those discussions are ongoing. including active participation for the budget chiefs? >> do we have time for other answers? >> yes, let's let them answer

if they want to. then when we come back we'll do the other questions. >> general dunford? >> congresswoman, thank you. admiral ferguson got it right. we're participants fully in the progress -- process to do the review. we have an opportunity to provide input in that comprehensive strategic review and we're confident that the results will be the framework within which specific cuts are made. as admiral ferguson alluded to, necessarily what we had to do was take a lack and assume proportional cuts across the board as we went through the drill of approximately $450 billion. again at the end of the day, as we get toward december, the strategic review, at least major tenets of the strategic review will be complete and we'll be able to talk about the specific decisions that secretary panetta will make but our understanding is he hasn't made final decisions about the specific cuts being made to achieve that initial goal. >> pretty much the other witnesses have the same answer?

>> i would argue from the army's standpoint that's exactly -- we are participating in the internal debate in the building but like when i get up in the morning and i see the futures, how they're doing in the stock market, if i have to look around town and read what all the think tanks are saying, they seem to be discounting the requirement for ground forces which is a natural tendency after what we've been through in the last 10 year bus every other time we've done that in our history, as i indicated before, we have done so on the backs of service men and women, soldiers on the ground and quite frankly, let's be honest, it has cost us lives. cost us lives at kazareen pass and in korea, it costs us lives every single time. >> and we haven't done this when a war is going on, as our chairman mentioned. what is the timeline for the review completion? >> i'm going to ask you guy, if

you could do this, let's hold that until we get back. we have just a few minutes for votes. we'll recess until votes, anyone that can come back then, we'll be there. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> gentlemen, once again we apologize for you -- to you for the inconvenience of us having to go do those votes but that's

what we're here for. we thank you for your patience and we were continuing with ms. bordallo. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. general breedlove, we'll begin with you. what is the timeline now for the review completion? >> ma'am, as we were walking out, we all looked at each other and came to the same conclusion, we expect the review should wrap up in december. and then as we are working on the budget issues between now and then, as we understand the facets of the review that apply to our budget processes, we do that. ma'am, my three compatriots said we are to this point and have been to this point, part of formulating that strategy. >> so that's the end of december? >> that's our collective wisdom. we all had the same date in mind. >> thank you. and then admiral forgetson, you didn't answer fully the question i asked about the

review process. i didn't understand the reduction in force at the command pacific or deactivation of the two seabee battalions. could you answer that? >> as we looked at structures around the globe, the initial budget submission we prepared had a reduction in order to meet the commands of the combatant commanders. as we size our forces, those forces are really on call to the combatant commanders to serve what we see as a future command. as i alluded to, we had to take reduckses in certain elements of capacity across the force in order to meet the budget targets we had and then we looked at areas of the seas be bees in particular as potential reduction. as we go forward in the review process, that's part of the effort we're looking at as to

what the final force structure of the construction battalions will be. >> thank you. i have one other question. why would congress consider potential changes to recruiting and retention incentives, or redugs to isen -- essential training accounts when then -- when the military accounts can't identify the cost of what they pay? the army has fulfilled the requirements of fiscal year 2008 national defense authorization act that requires contracts or requires an inventory of contracts for services but for nearly half a decade while this nation has been at war, the air force and the navy and the defense agencies have failed to implement this law. which would help us control the skyrocketing costs and expenditures on contracted services. so what is each of your military departments doing to reduce contracted services and

work requirements instead of just reducing dollars? if you are only reducing dollars, you are likely setting up conditions to default to contractors in light of current civilian hiring freezes. so i guess air force will answer that first. >> congresswoman, thank you for the opportunity. we are as our other services -- as are other services looking at everything we do contract yulely especially as we learn the lessons of the wars we have been in for the past 10 years. what is inherently governmental and what should we be retaining as a blue suit requirement versus those things we contract for, most specifically in combat zones and every facet of what we do via contract has been reviewed to see if this is something that we either want to eliminate, do we need to repurchase and bring back into our service those things in a

military way? of course this isn't a time where we expect that our air force will get smaller rather than larger so there's a lot of pressure on that process. and what are -- how does that relate to those jobs that typically our civilians also do, civilian whors part of our air force? so we are in an ongoing review, we are focusing most specifically on those things that are done in combat zones and whether they should be a blue suit job or contract job and we are putting fiscal pressure on what we spend on contracts to help us incentivize looking at how to get that the -- at that approach. >> anyone else care to answer? >> i know in the navy, the secretary is leading a budget that looks at all our costs, contracts we have, along the same lines to see what's inherently governmental and

where are we paying excessive overhead and charges in that area. >> are you all in agreement? >> we're doing exactly the same thing. i believe it's a -- we've appointed i believe a deputy secretary to handle contracts and service contracts, going through a complete review of them to understand where there's redundancies and places where we can cut and where there are certain air yass -- areas that may fall under the purview of being able to use soldiers to help us in some of these areas. >> general? >> congresswoman, we're part of the same process that admiral ferguson described in the department of the navy. >> when is the time line for this review? >> i'll be honest, i'm not sure. our process within the department of navy, i do not know what the timeline is for the review. my assumption is to it's in conjunction with the budget due in december. i know we'll have an initial assessment of our contracting at that time, i'll get back to

you if it's going to extend past december. >> thank you very much, thank you, gentlemen. i yield back. >> and the gentlelady from guam has yielded back. i know she has additional questions but she's deferred those to the end so other members can get their questions in. we have the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, one of the things i would hope you'll continue to do is to inform the committee of things that are in the code sections that we could take out that are increases your cost of operations, things we'd like to pretend we can afford but we can't, like energy requirements. i represent robins air force base and would love to invite you to the air logistics cent, if you come in hunting season,

i'll make ate worthwhile venture, i'll even get you to a georgia tech game, though i might wear a different hat than you would. the men and women in our area are very grateful for the commitment of the three depot strategy and i just want to again make ask the question, that is a commitment to maintain the three depots, thank you so much for that. i hope as we go through the cuts that as a member of congress, i know you know more about running your different departments than i do. i hope you'll be forthcoming with us about what we can do to help you in that and i want to be an ally for you. i'm sorry we're going through this.

i'm honestly embarrassed we have more discusses in this congress about cuts in the military than cuts to social programs. i think that something that quite honestly is carrying america down a dangerous path and i know america is tired of the wars in afghanistan and i know our men and women that have been over there will continue to go but i know they're ready for more time with their families. i'm not sure that when we come out the world's not going to be a more dangerous place than it is now. if i can ever help you, please feel free to call on our office. >> congressman, thank you. we do have a commitment to the three depots, we think that's the minimum. we thank you for your support to us and as all of us, i think, look at what we can do

to address the tail of our forces to add to the tooth and that will continue to be important as we go forward, bringing capabilities to all our service that's unmatched around the world to make sure that our services, our air force, and the airplanes they fly are ready to do the mission and our commitment is strong there. >> yes, sir. and the other aspect of it is that those cuts, you know, we need to rebuild a lot of machines we've used. every dollar that we take out of the rebuilding of those machines is a dollar that comes out of a man or woman's pocket that's working on that assembly line. if you want to create jobs in the country, i would respectfully submit that this is the place where you do it. the country, every citizen gets a direct benefit from a strong, well-equipped military and every dollar we spend in rebuilding our equipment is a dollar that goes back into an

american working man, working woman's pocket to take care of their families. thank you again for what you've done for our country and we'll continue to stand ready, willing, and able to help you. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing and to the witnesses for spending some time with us here today. i just want to -- first i want to ask a question about a very specific issue, the c-27 cargo aircraft which it appears a full production plan has been put on hold or at least partially delayed and you know, obviously for the army, that's a big issue in terms of having that lift capacity because it's pretty old group of cher pas left there. i wonder if someone could give

an update in terms of where that decision stands, whether it's related to the $465 billion or is it -- are there other issues at work here? i don't know whether either general wants to comment -- >> sir, i'll be first to comment on that. i cannot speak specifically to what you mentioned about a decision on full scale production. we'll take that for the record and get back to you. as far as the c-27 and the mission of supporting the army and it's -- in its, what would probably be the last portion of delivery of goods to the air force and army, the air force has a full commitment to that mission, we will not back off the requirement for the air force to meet that mission. if that mission is to be done with c-27's or c-130's is a decision still pending and is part of this ongoing budget

review. but that will be worked out in the next few months. >> thank you. general, if you wanted to comment? >> the army is very committed to the c-27. we feel it fills a gap. right now my rotary wing aviators are in about a 1-1 bog dwell, boots on the ground for 12 months, coming home 12 to 14 months. rotary wing is the coin of the realm now. a lot of it is moving airfield to airfield where the c-27 could fill a gap we think is critical. even in afghanistan. but in other places in the world, i think it is even more convincing plus it provides tremendous capability for homeland defense. that is one of the things that was critical about the c-27 and its ability to get into airfields here in the united states that other aircraft can't get into in the event of homeland defense kinds of missions.

we're totally committed to it. >> again, if we can get that follow up, that would be great. a numb of russ interested in helping push that along if there's a way we can. admiral, i think the chairman in his opening remarks talked about the shortfalls and the repair and maintenance account and in many respects, this should be a sort of milestone year for the navy, at least in one aspect, one that you probably hear from me add nauseam, the submarine fleet, we're at production for the first time in 22 years, we're doing full startup r&d for the replacement program. obviously this is propress that could be challenges. if the sequestration go into effect and i guess maybe if you could talk a little more about mr. forbes' comment regarding the repair and maintenance account in terms of the impact on fleet size and capability. >> it's an important point. the navy, we reset in stride.

we deploy and in fact over half our forces are under way, ships and submarines, on a given day, about 40% are forward deployed. the forces is going up. we don't have the luxury of taking them offline for long periods of time. the maintenance funding we have when we bring them home for their turn around is essential to sustain that force, to reset it, and prepare it to go, both the amphibious lift for the marines, as well as aircraft carriers, submarines and surface ships. we have watched the trend in readiness over time. we are operating with -- within acceptable levels but there's a negative trend over the long-term as we shrink mainlt nance funds. as we go forward, we are absolutely committed to keeping the force whole and ensuring that those forces operating are well maintained going forward. it does present a challenge in

an era of declining budgets. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, is recognized for five minutes. >> the d.o.d. in this current year budget predicted fuel costs per barrel of oil to be $131. d.l.a. has recently pegged it at $166 a barrel. it's projecting that level will be sustained throughout the balance of this fiscal year. how are you going to deal with that? general breedlove, let's start with you. >> thank you for the opportunity to talk to you. we do have an aggressive program in our fuel savings and are looking at numerous opportunities both existing technologies and new technologies, to get after it. a good example is recoring of our c-130 engines. if we can get to a new core of those aircraft on those aircraft engines running cooler and running more efficiently,

the fuel savings is quite important. simple things that we're doing across our aircraft fleet, winglets on our larger aircraft, changing some of the exterior hull designs cuts down on a little bit of fuel. you would think that that's not significant but we understand, as you do as well, that the air force is the number one user of fuel in the united states. and so every little bit we can cut saves money to roll back into things that are really needed in our force. we are attacking this because it is the most important thing to get at for air force savings and energy. >> congressman, thanks for the question. we share your concern about that, what i perceive to be a critical vulnerability, reliance on fuel not only from a cost perspective but from a rain of logistics as we' see in afghanistan, the criticality of getting fuel to our forces and putting people in harm's bay to

-- way to deliver that fuel. all the units on the ground in afghanistan have been fueled with renewable energy sources. it started as an experiment and within about 14 months, every unit has renewable energy, not only solar pams, tent liners, low energy or energy efficient lighting. as we look at our requirements, as we acquire new equipment, fuel efficiency is a critical part of the requirements. then as a whole, within the department of the navy, the seconderer tear of the navy has led an agreesive effort to replace our fossil fuels are alternative fuel sources and other initiatives in developing technologies that might be available to release us from the shackles of fossil fuels. again not only from a cost perspective but a challenge in delivering that to the battlefield. >> i guess i'm hearing from both of y'all that this 25% incroose in cost that was not budgeted is something you think

you're going to be able to adequately deal with? >> congressman what we're doing is making choices. there's other ways we can -- we increasingly rely on simulation as an example to develop efficiency for our pilots and ground forces. we make changes to ensure we maintain a high state of read youness and still pay all our bill -- readiness and still pay all our bills. this is going to be a challenge, it does exacerbate an already stressed maintenance account but we're trying to work within the resources we have. again to ensure that our folks maintain proper training before they deploy, and we have no issue with delivering fuel obviously to our forces that are forward deployed as our number one priority. >> admiral? >> we are part of the very aggressive energy efforts led by the secretary for our basing. but more to your point, the challenge in this fiscal year that we're facing. should the current prices be

sustained and lately we've seen them start to come down a bit, but if they were sustained for the entire year, for the department of the navy, the shortfall would be around $1.1 billion that we would face in fuel costs. we would have to offset those by reductions in other areas of the operations and maintenance account to pay for that, or seek a reprogramming or other action from the congress to address it. and because it is an execution year, the ho rye soren of -- ho rye soren of many of our efficiencies won't generate those savings in order to generate them this year. to be able to sustain what we need to train and operate forward. >> i have little to add except for the fact that the army is working in three specific areas, operational energy for our forces deployed and again we'll do whatever we have to do and balance whatever accounts we have to to to ensure after the what they need but we're looking at ways to reduce

they're reliance, one is replacing generators with fuel efficient generators and the fuel savings alone is huge. . these things include energy savings and it is a big selling point when you look at the life cycle cost of those vehicles once we bring on board. we're working with a net zero pilot at at least three installations. if we are using solar at the national training center and other locations to help with energy needs, and also, the human-resources command in kentucky used to geode-thermal to produce its heating and cooling in the summertime.

>> thank you. >> the gentle lady from hawaii is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. my question is first directed to general -- the general. and by the way, i think we owe you a "happy birthday" to the marine corps. let me begin with statements you made in your statement. i am curious about the fact that you said our nation needs a force that can respond to today's crisis. i would like to explain what you meant by "expeditionary force." and also, i think what we are looking at as we look forward to a 10-year budget, what will force look like in the year 2020? those are the discussions we have been having with the secretary panetta, as well as

the new chief. if you could proceed accordingly. >> congresswoman, the first question, concerning "expeditionary," what that means is a couple of things. number one, we would not be relying on a tough political access being provided by somebody else. we are capable of operating in an austere environment. when we come from someplace, we come with the water, fuel, supplies that our sailors need to accomplish the mission. and with regard to the today's forces today, as i alluded to in my opening statement, physical presence matters. it matters for a couple of reasons. number one, it shows a sign of our economic and military commitment to a particular region. it deters potential adversaries and ensures our friends. as you start moving up the range

of military operations, it also allows you to respond in a timely manner to a military crises. a lot of time to have ours, if not minutes to respond. you cannot do that from the continental u.s. unless a force is on the scene able to do that. it also allows you to buy time and space for decision makers. they can contain a crisis as the rest of the joint forces prepared to respond to something that may be a bit larger than what is being dealt with on the scene. if you look at expeditionary forces and you talk about responding to today's crisis crisesannot -- today's today, you have the data de shaping operations, day-to-day engagement with our allies. and than the sticker price of the same force, you can enable a joint force to respond to something larger on the side of a contingency. >> you also went on to respond

in regard to secretary panetta's announcement that you could cut in half the time it takes to achieve readiness. i assume that is what you are speaking to hear. however, isn't the assumption that we know where we are going to be? we also have to have some kind of analysis that if you are going to be ready to go in a couple of hours, or whatever it is, that we would know where we are most likely going to be? for example, i am from hawaii. if you are going to be deployed in afghanistan, is that going to be a couple of hours? what is the theater, as far as you're concerned? and we have to make these truces because we do not have money for every -- these choices because we do not have money for everyone. where would you put your resources if you had a magic wand? >> it has been clear to all of us, and stated by the secretary

of defense, that the pacific is the future of our country from both an economic and military perspective. that is priority number one. you will still see for many years to come security challenges from egypt to pakistan. that is another area you should see significant military presence. but i would argue that one thing we are not good at is predicting the future. as sure as we talk about the priority of the person that -- of the pacific and the challenges in the united states central command, someplace else will cause us to respond, and we do not know where that will be. when the commanders ask us for deployable forces to be out there, each of them ask for that. they ask this as a mitigation to the rest of the unknown. from a priority perspective, we will see the preponderant of our effort in the commitment to be in the central command and pacific command. but prior to cannot be exclusivity.

we will still have to satisfy the requirements of the other combatant commanders. again, as the day-to-day shaping, but more importantly, as a hedge against the risk of the unknown. >> if you could respond to me in writing because i'm out of time, curious as to what expeditionary force would be comprised of -- and i'm talking about ships, helicopters, amphibious vehicles, whatever. if you could give me an idea, so when we vote on whether things are no longer necessary, i have an idea of what we are talking about. >> i will be happy to do that, and the good news for you is that there is expeditionary capability on the hawaiian island and they are available in the time of the crisis. i will be happy to get back to you on the detail of marine expeditionary forces, as was the naval forces that are critical to do our job >> thank you. >> and i would be glad to do the same for the army. >> and the air force? and if you call it something

other than expeditionary force, you can tell me that, too. >> i just have to underline something that was said. we just do not know. we have been 100% right in something, and that is never getting it right. >> general de m.c. said the same. >> it is true. all you have to do is look at history. if we do not have a balanced force that can meet threats wherever they happen, the national military command has said that we have to be prepared wherever there is force. that is when we get ourselves in trouble. we are repeating a cycle here that is something that has happened many times in our history. >> thank you. >> i will thank you for your patience. we have just a few more questions, but i know that the general has a hard stop that he has to make. i'm going to ask the lady from -- the gentle lady from to oust

him her questions. -- from guam to asking her questions. >> thank you. what skill sets in your respective services are you all ready experiencing changes in because of reductions in manpower already taken? and what way will this be affected with further reductions? the general, why don't you go first because we know the air force has experienced shortages in more than a dozen and co and offer sir skill sets -- officer skill sets. >> there are several skill sets both in our officer and enlisted corps that come under pressure. i think it talks to capacity. in our air force, some portions

of our air force have a good capacity to handle the first bite. then we will be stretched a little bit on the second fight. but already come on the scenario where we have one or more fight, or we are engaged just like we are now in afghanistan and iraq, we are already stressed in some very key areas. you mentioned several of them. in our list of core, linguists. we are going so fast in intelligence and reconnaissance that we are struggling to keep abreast of the requirements for those people who take the data that is coming into the system and break it down for use by our ground forces and others. our battlefield darman that were billed for a certain model during the cold war -- air men that were built for a certain model during the cold war, we are catching up on those. all of our ground troops are

supported by the air combat folks. they are all under pressure out in a one-war scenario and we have to work on those. special operations weather and security forces as we have picked up security and defense responsibilities on bases. some things you would not have thought about, just simply because of the way that services do things differently, we have a lot of contract in senior and co's and officers. career field operations, contract in, for example. and civil engineering as well, those are all under pressure as we move forward. as we construct our budget -- constrict our budget, we will keep an eye on growing those. the air force will come under

pressure in other areas, but we will have to keep an eye on those very critical areas that i have mentioned, so we can grow to a more acceptable risk in those -- level of risk in those areas. >> thank you. >> general, since the korean war, it is my i understand -- it is my understanding that there has not been a single marine that has lost his life do to combat in 15 years. i may be incorrect, but that was the stock -- that was the number given to me. if we were to cut back, would we continue to have that kind of era dominance? >> mr. chairman, i would never beg to correct, but i would correct in one way. since the korean war, we have

suffered an air attack by scuds and some others, who have taken the lives of our soldiers and sailors and marines on the ground. just that one correction. the point that you make is one that is often talked about, the fixed-wing air. we have not lost in that arena since the latter part of the korean war. our marine air and naval air and to some degree, the rotary wing of the army, we have put together what we call off their dominance across the years to give -- era dominance across the years to give our ground forces protection. when i was in europe in the 1980's and we would practice for the big war on the plains of northern germany, we would go

out in our brigade formation and when we came under attack supposedly from soviet forced air, we would do all kinds of maneuvers to react so the defenders could set up and defend us and so forth. we have now come to an age where we are so used to and so enabled by that their dominance that the joint team brings -- the air dominance that the joint team brings to bear, our position on the ground and on the sea would change drastically if not for the forces that bring this air capability. certainly, we will all be under new pressure under the new budget regimes. without starting a long conversation about areas of the world where we talk about the

paradigm of area, a2ad, anti- access ariel dominance, our opponents so constrict and area due to their ability to put up air defenses, sea defenses, ship the fences that keep us -- defenses that keep us at in a certain range that could restrict our ability to approach with weapons that would give us the capability in this anti- access environment, that is where the pressure will be. quite frankly, in some portions of the world, if we are not able a-to-ad, we willa

not dominate. >> general, thank you so much. i know you have to go. please know how proud we are of your service and the men and women who served under you in the united states air force. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity. >> we will not hold you much longer. just a couple of things that we would like to get for the record. i want to heal back to miss our dallas so she can ask her question -- miss bardales so she can ask her question. >> i want to -- general, go ahead. >> i mentioned in my opening statement that our marines have all they need to accomplish the mission. that is our number one priority. the cost has been felt by those units at the home station. about two-thirds of them are

currently in a degraded state of readiness. that impact our ability to deal with another contingency, or certainly, the unexpected. there's also the cost of which come out of afghanistan to reset the force, to address equipment shortfalls and to refresh the of government that will be coming out of afghanistan. we currently estimate that bill at about $3 billion. in some ways, that is a good story because a couple of years ago that bill was in excess of $15 billion. with the help of congress in recent years we have been able to do some resetting. as we look to the future, i would be concerned that we actually do reset the force, we actually addressed those deficiencies and replace the equipment that has worn out from operations in afghanistan as we move into the future. the second thing i would be concerned about is our ability to modernize and keep pace with modern threats.

this really gets us back to the force we have before going to afghanistan, and replacing that equipment. we need to keep apace and modernize our equipment. we need to get back to that same state we were in -- we want to avoid getting back to that same state we were in the 1970's when our equipment was outdated and worn out. >> thank you. >> as we look at the manpower issues, the force is under pressure. our average deployments, as i alluded to, is about 50% away from where it needs to be. they are under stress and within that area, we have a group of very critical specialists. i am thinking of nuclear operators, linguists, cryptology us, those involved in highly technical fields like

acoustics, aviation maintenance and electronics, where because the outside economy is presently not hiring to the level where they could think about leaving, they are staying with us. my concern as we go forward into this, keeping pace with the force that we have and making sure that we sustain their compensation under an area -- in an area under high stress. as the economy returns and get better, we might lose those elements. it retention is something we are watching closely. we are recruiting with the highest quality force that we have ever had and we are very appreciative. in the long term manpower, it is the highly skilled, critical specialties that we are mostly concerned about. >> thank you. general? >> recording has never been stronger.

if you had told me this -- recruiting has never been stronger. if you had told me this 10 years ago, i would not have believed it. but again, as the guy gets paid to worry about things, i also believe it is fragile. i worry about quarterly aviators. that is an area -- rotary aviators. that is an area where they are spending 12 to 15 months and then a bit of time at home and then right back out. i have some aviators that are on six or seven deployments. the secretary of the army has made a decision to add additional uniformed contract in specialists, officers and senior non-commissioned officers, and warrants to the u.s. army. even as we downsize the force because we realize it is critical. the electronic warfare is also an area where we are adding to

our roles, even as we downsize. i would like to pylon to what general de -- general don ford said. i will tell you, the ground combat vehicle, the infantry fighting vehicle is critical for the u.s. army. we are not talking about going into full rate production at this time on the ground combat vehicle. we're just trying to get from milestone "a" to milestone "b" where we can make a decision of to 2.5 years from now whether week ago to new building. and at the same time we will look at some off-the-shelf solutions to an infantry fighting vehicle. there are many. then when those two lines of african birds, to years to two and a half years from now, we will make a conscious decision on what we can afford.

but to cut that off now will only put s two years behind. a modernization program is critical to the army. i would argue we will -- we are doing the same thing to the joint like tactical wheeled vehicle. possibilityg at the of what it would cost to rebuild humvees. at the same time, we are looking at a partnership with the marines to drive down the requirements on thejltv. we have done that in partnership to drive down those requirements, but that, too, will enter into what they call a technical development phase, and it will come together with what they have looked at with the recap of humvees. that is down the road shorter than two years where we will be able to make a decision on what is smarter.

do we recap humvees, or grow with a new jltv ? i believe it is essential that we be allowed to critics -- to continue that critical work or we will end up with a force that is not modernize. in the end, that will cost us live this. -- cost us lives. >> thank you. >> one thing that all three you have -- but you have talked about -- and first of all, i compliment you on the job you have done with retaining your troops and recruiting. i see the pride in your eyes as you look at the products you are able to turn out. but i also hear you turning -- using a phrase, and " keeping faith." part of that is keeping faith with the package. it is more than just the dollars. it is everything. it is the commissaries that they

go to, the schools they use, the programs they have as an overall package. when someone sits down and determines whether or not they will sign up or sign up again. if you could elaborate, a little bit, your concerns with this keeping faith. and secondly, we had a major policy change with don't ask, don't tell -- and i'm not asking you to weigh on that either way -- but we did in-depth studies, focus groups that were done before we implemented that policy. i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit what the army did, the navy did, the marine corps did in terms of that policy, and then compare that to what we have done with the compensation packages. have we done any similar types

of analyses? >> we have not, because the proposals have been coming from every direction. you are so correct that this is a holistic review. it needs to include those benefits that you have for medical care, retirement, educational benefits. they need to be looked at as a package and not individual programs. they are interrelated. we need those focus groups. we need to know what the educational benefits mean to the 19-year-old kid coming out of high school into the u.s. army. what role did the play in his decision to sign up during a time of war? the defense that board published their plan for looking at military retirement, the secretary of the army and the chief of staff went out and talked to soldiers. there were expecting to get questions based on the "army times" article about captains

and noncommissioned officers. that was not it. they got it from a 19-year-old kid who said, mr. secretary, what are you doing to my retirement? we know the numbers, 70% of those will never reach retirement. it leads one to believe, though, that the retirement package had a role in this individual's decision to join us in a time of war. if we go back to recruiting and retention, these things are huge. i would only echo what you say, chairman. we need to take the time to look at this. we understand it needs to be looked at, yes, but let's do it holistic lee and let's put together a total package and understand where that is going to take us. >> i know for the record, how many years have you served in

the army? >> just short of 40. and i don't look it, do i? >> know, you don't. [laughter] i would have thought 19. but with all of those years of experience, would you say it would be foolish and predictable of us to launch in a direction before we have done an analysis of what it is going to do to the forest? >> yes. >> i would echo the general's comments and say what i go out to the force and i visit, it is the number one question i get. part of the benefit of the review process that happened under the study for the repeal of don't ask, don't tell is that, we not only did -- did focus groups, but we refused policies that allowed -- and we reviewed policies that allow people to work through questions that they had about

the policy development. and communication -- i think, in an issue that is as important to retirement and our forests and their decision about retention, a similar type review of that the roh nessun and major would be important, as well as -- of thoroughness would be important for the force. >> i agree. i will summarize with a key point and that is this. there have been many proposals about compensation out there that talk about how much money we will save. i have not seen a single proposal that provides an analysis of what the effect on the force would be. at the end of the day,

compensation is about our ability to recruit and retain high-quality force we have had in harm's way over the last 10 years. if you play it forward, it is about a conversation that some young sergeant may have with his spouse a couple of years from now. the spouse may say, hey, your four years are up. but what are we going to do? you have been deployed every 100 days -- 180 days out of every 365 days. this is really hard. you are missing milestones in your children's lives. are we going to stay in or stay out -- get out? at that point they will look out housing, medical support, behavioral health support, and tangibles like whether they have respect in the committee, on to their leaders treat them with trust and respect? all of these things play into this. it needs to be a holistic approach to be sure that at the

end of the day when the sergeant had a conversation -- have that conversation, that the compensation exceeds the challenges and risks that we ask him to endure. >> i want to ask the same question that i asked general crowley, and despite your youthful looks, how many years have you serve? >> 35 years on active duty. >> and with that 35 years, how detrimental do you think it would be to your force if we launch out with this kind of compensation package without an understanding of the effect? >> i think it would be detrimental. the quality of the force that we had in the late 1970's, that is what we do not want to go back to. as long as our nation has made a decision that we will have an all-volunteer force, we have to

make sure the compensation meets the requirements of that force. whether it is an expense or not is relative to what you get for -- from it. and how much it costs may not be expensive when you think about it in those terms. the chairman has said we should look at compensation. we should. i am not suggesting that there might not be rational and good changes to be made. but we have to do that in a way that ensures that we recruit and retain the high quality force. folks who lose sight of that are heading down a path to not knowing what is on the other end. >> i would like to shift gears. we have a lot of discussions in congress and across the country today -- if we were not to be forward deployed, if we were to pull all of our troops and assets from across the globe and bring them back to the u.s., then that would be a more

inexpensive way for us to conduct our national defense and foreign policy. general bumford, can you tell us how that would impact the marines and if that were done, whether or not you think that would be a good policy for us to undertake? >> when the congresswoman from hawaii asked me her question -- you know, power forward deployed -- power forward deployed forces make a statement about us economically and militarily. it allows us to respond to crises in a timely manner. and it certainly deters our potential adversaries -- adversaries. to give you an example, if you took the third marine

expeditionary force that is currently located in japan and okinawa and soon to have elements on guam, if you brought them back to the u.s., in the event of the crises or an event, it would take months to get them back out to the pacific. and there would be the expense of planes, trains, and automobiles involved. >> we had a symposium in newport, rhode island recently. over 100 navies were represented from around the globe, and nearly all of the representatives -- representatives were cheated of their navies. the initial question is, -- were chiefs of their navies. the initial question is, are you going to be there for us to provide defense against piracy, missile defense shield set for our allies in europe, to be able

to operate with our partners, the marine corps, to project power, to be able to carry a wayne from a submarine -- a win from a submarine. to be able to respond quickly -- the demand for naval forces has never been higher, both in central command and in the western pacific. but also in other regions like the africa where a humanitarian assistance is needed. or for support in international waters. we see that pulling back those forces at the present would abdicate the nation's maritime leadership in the world and would reduce our ability to influence, shape events around the globe and provide stability. >> we understand adjustments will have to be made to forward- deployed army forces. but the same time, we think it

is absolutely critical from an engagement standpoint. the relationships that are made from -- went a young captain meet another captain from another service and they brought together and have those connections back-and-forth are absolutely critical, particularly in a strategy that will rely on the ability of allies to assist us. without that forward engagement, a living and working and training with those forces, we lose so much. i would be very careful. taking a look at what the green eyeshade people would look at when they look at forward deployed forces, i will look at some of the intangibles of how relationships are built and how critical those relationships are in a time of crisis. it is always good to have someone on the other side you can call. and many of these engagements provide that to us.

>> one of the other discussions that we have had up here from a lot of people, we sometimes get lost in the nomenclature and the syntax. people say, well, if we make these cuts, we just have to come back and do again our strategy so we cannot have as many missions. a couple of weeks ago we had testimony from john skelton and others. i asked each of them what they would want to give to congress from their years of experience. and congressman skelton said that throughout his tenure in congress there were 13 contingencies. 12 of those were not protected. only one of them was predicted. no matter what we do in our

strategy in terms of changing that, do any of you know of a time when the president ask you to perform a mission remember a time when you said you could not do it because it is not in your strategy? >> know. when i was a division commander i spent a year in iraq. i came back and spent time in a reset faiz. i was back for three months when katrina hit. i was told that i was at the lowest readiness level of any unit in the u.s. army, to pick up a brigade and send it to new orleans and fort hood, texas within 24 hours. buyouts, are you kidding me? we just got back from iraq -- i said, are you kidding me? we just got back from iraq. you pick up a brigade and you be in new orleans in 24 hours. we will never fail you. and we will always do it.

but if we are not trained, not equipped, do not have the proper floor structure, the results will not be good. >> would it be fair to say that when you say the results would not be good, that includes the men and women that come back from -- >> that is exactly what i was trying to show and my historical examples. no one ever said, no, we will not take taskforce smith into korea. they said, roger, we will do it. but they went in with battalions poorly equipped and they took 40% casualties. that is what happens. we will never say no. that, i think, we will all promise you. but the key is the results when we do that mission. >> admiral ferguson? >> i would echo that in the history of the nation we have never said no and we will not say no in the future. our forces will be as ready as

we can make them, and we will operate for work. we will be ready, and we will take risks at home, rather than in any way keep the forces that we have unable to achieve the mission. >> would you agree that if the risk is increased, that means the risk of the number of men and women that may come back from that mission if we send them in unprepared and not ready? >> i think all of us in the service accept that risk as part of the business of wearing this uniform and serving the nation. we accept that as part of the calculus. our mission as leaders is to make them ready and to minimize that as much as possible. >> saying no to the commander in chief is not in our dna. to we will never do that and we never have. has already what' been said. we will never say no, but

without adequate equipment and training and leadership, the cost of going into harm's way without being ready -- which we have articulated today is the requirement to have our forces at a high state of readiness -- the cost of going into harm's way without ballast readiness is the cost of yen -- is at the cost of young americans -- with outbalanced readiness is that te cost of young americans. >> of all of your years of experience, what concerns you most? and please feel free at this time to tell us anything we have left out that you feel you want to get on this record, so we can give you the opportunity to do that. and i will wrap up by letting the chairman and ms. bordalo make any comments that they may

want to make. >> my biggest fear is that we will not be able to -- and we understand we will have to downsize the army. we already know we are going to 520,000. that is in the books. and 27,000 of in-force structure. i'm concerned about losing the temporary in strength increase. i have many individuals on disability and it is taking the way too long to look at it. i hope that someday we will look at the disability evaluation system and look to design a system for an all-volunteer force, rather than a system that is billed for a conscript force. that is a huge issue in terms of readiness. i hope that we look at that. but i fear that whatever force we decide on in the end, whatever size, i'd have to be

well trained and maintained. it is absolutely critical. and besides shrinking our fourth, the mistake we have made in the past is to -- our force, the mistake we made the past is -- we maintained a certain size after world war ii. it was not a sizable of the task force but got -- it was not the size of the force that got taskforce smith into trouble. it was the training and equipment that got them into trouble. i would ask that you look at this, that we doing with those three things i talked about earlier on. we look at force structure, modernization, and training and maintaining that force and ensure that whatever size the army is at the end of this thing, it is a well-trained, modernized force that can do what the nation asks it to do.

>> i firmly believe america is a maritime nation faced by two oceans. our prosperity and standing in the world, in many ways, is ensured by the naval forces that we are able to deploy forward. i around the globe, can -- potential competitors are working to negate that advantage. we have to be able to paste that in the modernization of our forces as we go forward. our allies and friends look to us to provide stability in the global common, that is, the sea. we have assured them that we are committed to do so. that is an important part of our security as we go forward. as i think about the future, the element of balance within enable portfolio is important. it is about ensuring the forces

that we have, whatever level that we sat on those from the strategy and fiscal environment, that they are able to be forward and meet that threat, a bowl to have -- able to have training and weapons such that it delivers to the president options that he can use away from our shores. as i leave you with thoughts, or things that really affect me, i had the occasion to attend the memorial service for the seals that are killed in the crash in afghanistan. the strength of their families and the commitment of those individuals who were operating on a seven-day cycle, and on for about 500 days of it -- they have been doing this for about 10 years of war. that core of people in the united states that are willing to raise their hand answer, to me, we can never lose that. that is the most essential

element. >> what concerns me is what i opened up with, and that is, that we will make these cuts without adequately looking at the implications. also, what concerns me is that folks think if we get it wrong, we can simply fix it in a year or two. that is not possible. if we break the trust are marines kamras -- of our armed forces, it will be decades before we get it back. we are not going to get it exactly right, but we cannot afford to get it wrong. probably the last thing is, that people would assume that the united states reduces their capability, someone else will be out there to pick up the slack. i do not know who else that would be.

i think we will assume extreme risk in things that are critical to the u.s. if we are not there, not forward deployed, not engage, not ensuring our allies and dealing with potential foes. >> thank you. and we have been joined again by the chairman. i would like to ask if he has any final questions or comments. >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. not to drag this out, but i had a call several weeks ago from a young man that i watched grow up. his dad is a good friend of mine and he is an air force officer, a physician stationed in san antonio. i guess he had been talking to his dad and his dad called me. he said he has been in 12 years and is looking at enlisting again and he wanted to know what to expect. what is my future?

what will be my retirement? he is enjoying the service, but he is very concerned. and i could not tell him. i do not know what his future is because i do not know all of this that we are going through. a couple of weeks ago i was busy with some marines and their wives. the wives spoke out and they are very concerned. same questions. can we look forward to a career? i have seen this movie before. when i was pretty new in the congress i was going up to visit west point and i had a lieutenant colonel with me. they do not let us go anywhere alone. and his dad had been the chief of the army -- no, his grandpa

had been the chief of the army. his dad had been the youngest brigadier in the army. and then he suffered a stroke and that ended his career. and this lieutenant colonel, his whole life, that is all he ever wanted to do was to serve in the military. and he was being riffed because his class at west point -- there was about three years of classes during the drawdown under bush and clinton in the early 1990's. he did not want to leave and he did not have a choice. when we got to west point, we were greeted by a lieutenant colonel there and he was also being addressed. -- being riffed. it did not matter as much to him, but he did not want to leave. to the first guy, it meant a lot.

that does break faith, as far as i'm concerned. you start somebody ought -- out on a career, you send them to west point, or annapolis, or the are force academy, and use it -- you make certain promises and then you break those promises. that is what happened. and then i think about these young men that are going outside the wire in afghanistan every day on patrol. if they are having to think about what is happening about my future instead of concentrating on ied's or on snipers or ambushes, or just not being able to be totally focused on their job, that puts them at risk today. needlessly.

>> mr. chairman, we thank you for those comments and for that passion that you have for the men and women who serve in our military. >> i want to thank the general for his comments about the pacific area and how important it is that we continue to increase our force structure. this is a troubled area. mr. chairman, i live there. that is my home. and i want to know that we, americans, living in guam and other islands surrounding us are protected. and to all of you giving us

information this afternoon, i found it very valuable in how important it is to keep up the strength of our military forces. thank you, mr. chairman. >> all three of you, we thank you for the service to our country and the men and women that served under you i think you can tell from your testimony and from the comments up here, this is not just about procurement or aircraft carriers. it all does come down to individuals and the men and women that served under you. all of us have stories that make this a very real. mine was a young marine. all he wanted to do from the time he was 11 was to serve in the marine corps. when he was 18 he became a marine. and when he was 19 i was speaking at his funeral. he had two tattoos, one was an american flag and one was of his family.

i was thinking at his funeral that this is the absolute best america has to give. but one of the things we have to make certain of, general, is that we do not profess faith. admiral, as you mentioned, -- we do not break that faith. adderall, as you mentioned, if we lose those families, we have a tough road. i think you can tell from this subcommittee that we plan to fight as much as we can to make sure that you guys do not have a fair fight -- that you guys never don't have a fair fight. we are making sure that we have the best trained, best equipped military in the world. thank you for your careers and helping to make that happen. with that, we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> looking ahead at our prime time schedule over on c-span2, bp fund manager kenneth feinberg talks about the implementation of his fund and the continued struggle in shipping in louisiana. his comments tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. earlier today here on c-span, house coverage, including a couple of votes. the first one on a bill that repeals a 3% withholding on federal contractors to make sure that they pay their taxes passed the house. also passing with a bill that basically pays for the repeal, by including social security

income when calculating medicare and other subsidies under the new telcel -- the new health care law. live coverage ferment -- returns on monday, october 31. >> this week on "the contenders," follow the career of thomas e. dooley, a dominant force in new york state politics and national politics .s well babcoc picked that as friday p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> secretary clinton cautioned cutting of spending in afghanistan and pakistan. she told the house foreign affairs committee today that stability in the region is critical to u.s. security. we will show you all of that hearing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

coming at, a portion of that hearing, including opening statement, about 50 minutes. >> i want to start by recognizing the concerns that many of you have about afghanistan and pakistan policy. you and the american people are right to ask questions, but i think it is also important, as the chairwoman alluded to in her opening statement, to recognize the significant results that our policy has already reported -- already produced. osama bin laden and many of his top the tenants are dead. the threat remains real and urgent, especially from al qaeda affiliates, but the group's senior leadership has been devastated and its ability to conduct operations greatly diminished. many of our successes against al qaeda would not have been possible without our presence in afghanistan, and close cooperation with pakistan. in afghanistan, we still face a

difficult fight, but coalition and afghan forces have reversed the taliban momentum in key areas. afghan security forces have a long way to go, but are taking more responsibility every day. and while the country still faces an enormous challenges from poverty and corruption, our development efforts have bolstered the economy and improved lives. you know the statistics. 10 years ago, fewer than 1 million students enrolled in afghan schools, all of them boys. now several million and 70% of them girls. i offer these brief examples to show that we are making progress toward our goals, and we cannot let up. i will be the first to admit that in working with our afghani and pakistan partners is not always easy.

but these relationships are advancing america's national security interest. walking away from them would undermine those interest. with that as a context, let me report as -- i just completed a report on both countries. i emphasize a three-track strategy of fight, top, and build, pursuing all three tracks at once. they are mutually reinforcing. and the chance for all to read to be successful is greatly increased by strong cooperation from the pakistan and afghan and governments. we briefly discussed each track. first, the fight. coalition and afghan forces have increased pressure on the taliban and other insurgents, including with a new operation in eastern afghanistan launched in recent days. our commanders on the ground are

increasingly concerned, as they have been for some time, that we have to go after the safe haven is across the border in pakistan. i will be quick to add that the pakistanis also have reason to be concerned about a tax coming at them from across the border in afghanistan. in islamabad last week, general dempsey, director patraeus and i delivered a unified message. pakistan must join us in squeezing this network from both sides of the border and closing safe haven. we understand the urgency of the task at hand and we have detailed and frank conversation about the concrete steps both sides need to take. i explained that trying to distinguish between so-called good terrorists and bad terrorist is ultimately self- defeating and dangerous. no one who target civilians of

any nationality should be tolerated or protected. we are not suggesting that pakistan sacrifice its own security, quite the opposite. we respect the sacrifice that pakistan has already made, and it is important for americans to be reminded that over the past decade, more than 5000 pakistani soldiers have been lost, and tens of thousands of pakistani citizens have been killed or injured. that is why we are pursuing a path of shared security that benefits all. the second track is talking. and here, too, we are taking concrete steps with our partners. i reaffirm america's strong support for an inclusive, afghan-led peace process. and we are very clear about the necessary outcomes of any negotiation. insurgents must renounce violence, abandon al qaeda, and abide by the laws and constitution of afghanistan, including its protections for

women and minorities. if insurgents cannot or will not need those red lines, they will face continued and unrelenting assault. and i want to stress, as i did in kabul, that the hard-one rights of women -- the hard-won rights of women and minorities must be protected. the afghans as strongly believe reconciliation is possible still, and we support that has the best hope for peace and stability in the region. pakistan has a critical role and a big stake in the outcome. we look to them to encourage the taliban and other insurgents to participate in the afghan peace process in good faith, both through inequitable public statements and by public statements. statements.