a larger global reform will put in place to change the way we work to get better results for american tax dollars. if you look at the last decade, usaid was asked to double its spending in countries, mostly iraq and afghanistan, in the early days of those conflicts, while also taking a 40% cut in its overall staffing levels. that led to widespread outsourcing of not just doing the work but also evaluating and judging and designing the next set of programs. we have implemented a new approach to accountability, insisting on valuation on all programs. tracking resources, trying to lower -- >> see this segment in its entirety at c-span.org.

now takeda institute for just -- now to the cato institute for downsizing the naval fleet. president obama's budget seeks to retire one aircraft terror, six frigates, and one navy cruiser. >> thank you, everybody, for coming, and belgium -- welcome to those who are watching on c- span. my name is ben friedman. i notice on the web description, it said the senior fellow, so i accept the promotion and assume it comes with a raise. we're here to talk about the navy and the surface fleet in particular. here at kate know we are what i call relative navalists. this means we want to have a smaller military and fewer wars.

we would like to give a bigger torture -- portion of the defense budget to the navy. i will introduce the speakers in the order they are speaking. if you see our first speaker, ben freeman, quoted in the newspaper, assume that thanks to the strange light on this -- likeness to me, i was planning to tell him there was not enough room for the both of us in d.c., but he does good work at the project on government oversight, so i allowed him to stay. he specializes in the department of defense personnel issues, weapons procurement, focusing on the littoral combat ship. he also looks at the impact of lobbying on u.s. foreign policy,

and there is a book coming out on this soon, right? he got a ph.d. in political science at texas a and m. then we have eric labs, who has worked in the congressional budget office where he is a senior analyst for naval forces and weapons, specializing in procurement and a sizing of the department of navy. he is used to the cameras from his vast experience in congressional testimony. his reports on shipbuilding and programs are required reading if you want to be up to date on the navy. he got his ph.d. at mit, where he was part of the world's finest securities studies program. then we have robert work, who has been undersecretary of in navy in the obama

administration. he served 27 years as an officer in the marines, working at the secretary of the navy's office in the clinton administration. he worked for the office of strategic and budgetary assessment. and these positions he worked on defense strategy and programs, dod transformation, and produced a lot of writing that ended up in my piles. he has a master of science and systems management from usc, other degrees from the naval postgraduate school and the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies, which gives him one of fewer masters than normal kate as

speakers. we made an exception. last we have christopher preble, vice president here at cato. is the author of three books recently. he has another book that he was lucky enough to co-at it with me. before joining kate no, chris taught at st. cloud university, where he got his ph.d. in history, and for proceedings today he was a commissioned officer for the navy and served on the u.s. ticonderoga. that, i will turn the microphone over to ben freeman. >> thanks, ben, and thanks to for having me, too.

i have been investigating electoral combat ship. if asked to represent 1/3 of the surface combatant fleet. so it is a good issue to talk about today. we found some issues with the first mature role combat ship, the u.s. as freedom. ike and mike collins learned about equipment failures and design issues. some issues had been previously reported, but many bornite, like a stern door, or the ramp and corrosion threat the interior of this sheet. the navy called these class issues. he should have never been issues in the first place. the ship builders told us this is shall put -- this is

showboating -- shipbuilding 101. we are confident that the officers will and support this investigation. i hope this will clarify questions i have been asking about the program. when i first began looking at the ship and working with these whistle-blowers, i learned about so many problems that one of the first questions i asked was, do you think the navy should use this ship? the answer was no. it was an fad of -- and in fact no -- an emphantic no! now with the pushback to singapore in 2013, they're not convinced that is a good idea.

the ship continues that issues and cracking problems. equipment failures continued to plague the ship, including engine failures. the question that i kept asking was, we know the other version, the general dynamics. we note that has problems. there are a lot of core russian issues. which variant is worse? initially the plant was to do it down select plan, have two ships build, pick the best ship. i have not gotten my hand on other whistle-blowers, but based on information, i think the

lockheed variant is the weaker of the two. we're not sure dod knows. their office receipts they have not received a foundation reports, formal, from the program testing office. the navy says they are working on the reports. we know we are buying a lot of these ships without knowing what we are getting. a fellow panelist said we are not sure how it will operate in the fleet. the question i asked him then and one i would like answered is, why do we have to well under contract if we do not know that testing results? another question is should we be purchasing two very different

variants? it is bennett for lockheed and general dynamics, but for tax payers, and the cato crowd, i am not convinced it is a good idea. if you're concerned with readiness, i am not sure it is a good idea. for the first time we are seeing these two ships side by side. that is pretty cool to see them out there. when you see them side-by-side you really see how different these ships are. it is hard to imagine two ships that do the exact same mission looking more different. -- lcs1, and then lcs 2, a very intimidating

looking ship. they did exactly the same thing. the differences go far beyond the appearance. they are very costly down the line. the crews of one not be able to operate the other. your spare parts and other those supply chains will be different. there may be issues with compatibility of the mission modules. this drives up costs and can decrease readiness. if these ships can but did the exact same thing, why should we pay more for two? another question is whether not lcs is a combat ship. even though, that is its names,

i am not sure. it will only conduct independent operations. why do we need it at all? i would like to believe in navy keeps bessie's -- the seas safe. near the iranian coast, it will not be in a low-threat area and may not have a superior strike group there. the lcs is not prepared to fulfill the mission. the development of the module has been slow at best. currently we are looking at a mine hunter that cannot see or atp mines and we're looking a sub hunter that does not have torpedo detection. i would like the lcs to do a lot of things. with that, i will hand over the

rest of my time to the panel and the rest of the surface combat fleet. >> i want greater than greater thanben for inviting me today. at the outset, the views i expressed here are my own and not those of the cbo or congress. i would like to frame my remarks with these three questions -- can the navy of for a shipbuilding plant " is the navy buying the right ships? are there uncertain answers to their questions, are there alternatives? the short answers to those questions, -- the navy of ford the plans -- can the navy afford the plans? probably not.

can the navy afford its plan put last 30 years the navy has spent $16 billion a year, new construction, refueling of submarines, delivery, everything. the navy's 2013 plan proposes to spend on average over the next 30 years $16.8 billion a year for new construction alone. when you add in all of the other things, you're talking about $18.5 billion a year per year over the next 30 years. of that money, a lot of this on to be loaded beyond the fit- up. the cost of this is 13 -- $7 billion a year. we do not know how holt sequestration is going to play

out, but regardless, it seems clear whether we get a change in the budget, that may have a further impact on the amount of funding available. as it is the navy by the right ships? the navy's plan has been made changes to the service combatant forces. truck crated eight program, canceled another, it has restarted another line, it is proposing to modify a line as economy exists with an improved radar. has maintained -- it has maintained 55 lcs in that program. a recent report raised questions whether the 51 flight 3 is the

right program for that future. it is a long report. some of the bottom-line concerns are that it may cost more than the navy thinks and there are questions about whether it will have a purple root margins of stability and growth and power and cooling that a ship of its type is going to need to have. lcs, that ship has been taking a lot of raps these days. i am not going to talk about the construction species. this is because i do not find them conclusive for but class as a whole. the concept of the lcs is an innovative one, being a mother ship. we did have a long discussion, but that is probably the future of the navy. i would be hesitant to cancel a

program that has pursued the first excursion down the path of the mother and remote systems. the navy is going to have to prove this concept at sea in an operational environment. a few observations about the mission. at the outset, the navy to supply to ship -- the navy justified the ship in waters. the navy did not do an analysis ahead of this program. it performed what my counterpart has called an analytic version birth. it is not clear why it needed to be 40 knots in terms of its speed. it has a limited range at high speeds and has an average range when operated at slow speeds, and was justified as a critical

wartime asset. over the past two years the navy's destination has evolved more to peacetime missions. maritime security, engagement with allies, exercises, sanctions enforcement. it will free up cruisers that of these do a lot missions because it is less intimidating to work with. even the cno said he would be hesitant to send it into a robust environment in wartime, but would be more inclined to keep the lcs because it will help prevent the war because it will be performing this exercise-type knishes, build a robust set of alliances, and reassure allies that -- are there alternatives?

one would be that it could be cheaper is that if you think we are right to be buying 24 total, occurring right now, and for we have already appropriated, 20 lcs for the navy has to come to its next decision point, and if it is like to be using these fort these exercises, you could get a joint high-speed bus appeared you could put some weapons and combat systems on that. you could come up with a ship suitable for those missions that the lcs is going to be doing for less money. that is one possibility. that is a cheaper option. another would be looking apple coast guard security cutter. in a report, the undersecretary made the argument that he would buy nine frigates for these

missions. in that report he wanted to buy that 55 lcs's that were part of the plant, but he found that nine frigates and exercise- building, sanctions enforcement, would be a useful contributor to the fleet. this is not a cheaper option. the national security cutter is a more expensive ship and the lcs, even before you make changes to the cutter that would make it more suitable. it might be a better fit because it has three times the range and endurance thelcs. in terms of the large surface combatants, if you do not find the 51 flight 3, is that a good story, there are not lot of alternatives. you could use the 1000 hull,

which would have everything built into it already. it will be a more expensive ship. where does that leave us? here is what i call that iron triangle, of navy shipbuilding. if you find you do not have enough money, you have three choices. you can spend more money, buy cheaper chips, or buy fewer ships. the spend more money often is not viable. the navy has gone down the path of buying cheaper cships. the contract price for the lcs gets you a $550 million ship.

you go back to the question of whether it is the best fit. the result will perhaps be buying fewer ships, and then we need to talk about, how small a fleet is too small? whenever we discussed today, this should be the question that blum's for a background, if we are going to a smaller fleet, how small should it be? thank you very much. >> good afternoon, everybody. it is a pleasure to be here to talk about the future of the u.s. navy surface fleet, and the lcs. you have to understand the feet design. this is a radically different bfleet designed.

i want to take a couple seconds and what you the different generations before i talk about the lcs. there is a myth that to date's fleet is nothing more than a smaller version of the cold-war fleet. nothing is further from the truth. from 1945 on, the navy went all into the guided munitions region, in which most munitions being fired at sea would be guided weapons. as a person said, one of the best technicians the navy has produced, all this is about is about a new weapon, a well- aimed missile to take advantage of our sensing and communicated technologies and vice versa. the first generation had a specific operational problem. everything is about going after

guided weapons, but each of the generations came a little bit differently. the first generation we had 6500 ships in august, 1945. within five years we were down to 634. a lot of those ships were decommissioned, but a lot of them went into the reserve fleet. we could take a ship out of the reserves buffet korea -- if a korea popped up. what you needed was to keep the soviet bombers away from the group, so you need a whole bunch of radar pickes. -- pickets. we fear the soviets, like us, got copies of the german

submarine which was revolutionary, and made obsolete all our destroyer escorts. we had to cope with large numbers of those. the parody was to develop guided weapons and go after a couple things. in this generation, we only built for the new combatants, and they did not have any guided weapons, with the exception of homing torpedoes. there was a giant debt charge gun and the five-inch 38. 40 new constructed come back tents. we had 67 conversions of world war ii ships. the second-generation was now we are faced nuclear-powered submarines and anti-ship cruise missiles coming in mass graves. the focus was to get more aaw

capability into the fleet. 121 new constructed ships. they would have gone in under the high intensity combat? of course not. you had 16 conversant where we took old cruisers and we put missiles ogden. at the persons and we took 148 destroyers and we put them through a big thing called the fram and tried to make them capable. third generation now we are focused on war at sea against the soviet union.

high intensity warfare. there was going to be a collision of battle networks. we built 106 third generation chips, 55 combatants at the high end, and 51 protection of shipping combatants. you never ever buy ever shipped to go into battle. you cannot afford it. it is not worth it. you do not need it. we did a couple second generation chips, the new upgrade where we make those ships a lot better. we are going to all digital combat systems. we introduced all sorts of new combat systems. this fleet is all in the guided weapons regime, asw, and aaw warfare.

after these three generations, the navy lost interest in small combatants. we had steel old submarine chasers. we had all sorts of gunboats. we were a small combatants may become a very small percentage of our 6700 ships were large combat spirit in the first generation, we found that small ships cannot carry the guided weapons you need to fight the bad guy. we had 13 daily escorts. they were failures. in the second generation we tried something smaller. we built 70 of them. their average time of service was only eight years. the work created because of the cuban missile crisis. they wound up doing other smaller commissions.

in the third generations we dealt 6 hydrofoils, really cool looking, very highly armed. they had an average year of service of 11.5 years. we come to the fourth generation, and the u.s. navy has to essentially decided the smallest combat it should be about 4,000 tons. that is the size of a good-sized forget. -- frigate. the fourth generation, the problem was a planned attack, all about rapidly deplete -- defeating an enemy's invasion. you wanted to connect to the joint network because of generation 3 we were doing everything independently at sea. we divested all combatants that did not have the aegis combat system on them. we standardized everything.

same combat systems throughout the fleet. we improve the battle networking and we set we are going to go baker. we were going to get rid of all for gets. we built 13 coastal chips. we built 13 because operations said they needed them, but it was too big for them. we were going to go to a 14,000 ton destroyer said the smallest fleet -- we were going to 116 combatants -- the smallest ship would have than 9,000 tons. it would have been excellent at stopping an invasion, but as far as engagement, it was a one-note navy. the fifth generation, here is where we are. the operations, faced with aerial denial networks that have naval components, and you have

to fight your way in to do what you need to do. you also want to maintain cost- effective presence throughout the globe. how do you solve those problems? we go to a high-low mix. multi mission combatants are cruisers and destroyers with big vertical launch missile cells, focused on the big fight. this all are multi-mission ships carry all their capability with them. then you go off four small ships, but this does add a lot better than a swiss army knife. every ship is self-deployed. he used to have all these different things. every ship is now self deployable. you need to be able to change combat systems quickly, with the

infamous -- emphasis on second systems. bridgett halt the inflatable boats. the surface fleet supports our feet design, each is a total force battle network which is a series of capability containers from small to extra-large. all day mission at the high end, an extremely versatile. you pour any type of capability into these ships. that is their feet design. now, i say we have second-stage systems. a lot of people look at the lcs break down into three general groups. the first groups are the people who did not understand that the side. it is different than any the navy has at.

is totally different. they do not get it. it did not accept what i just told you. we can debate that. the second ones are the ones who focus on the problems of the lcs in the early part of the program. it was a disaster when we took over. there were all sorts of problems, but we think we are on the way to getting it on track. the third group of people are people who did not like the ship itself, the design flaws in the ship. some of the people in the first group want to see a forrigate. the lcs is not a frigate. other people want to see got boats. -- gunboats. this is a second-stage system,

with four remote systems on it. you can put anything on this, and the second state system, because everything we are building is either self- deployable or we are taking it with us. the patrolabout combat ship quickly and we will have some questions. the littoral combat ship represents the return of a small combatant in fleet designed. i have no doubt there are a lot of whistle-blowers. there are some of the people who believe if you are not any that it is it not a warship. they're dead wrong. it is about 3,000 tons, and i believe the designer with korea,

because if you look at these, small combatants did not survive in this may be. it has got to be big enough to be able to have margins to do something with it. to thousand tons. multi-role platform, emphasizing second-state systems. these are r and d platforms. of course there are problems with it. we built them to identify the problems. we're working the mission modules and had a successful test on the mine warfare model. it will do better right now many mcm's that are in the fleet. our and tight-service module is designed to fight these small boats. people who do not think this is a warship are not.

this ship will be fighting against a threat. underneath the umbrella of the broader fleet. it will engage the services engagement out to the limits of its cannons. five nautical miles of i. you have a tool engagements and where helicopters and missiles from the ship -- it was terrible, it would have been a great system, but the beauty is you do not have to we could design it. -- redesign it. in the albert zone you will be doing air. -- in the outer zone will be doing air. it will sweep mines. it has unlimited growth

potential. if it comes against a cruiser that has a lot of -- on it, it is not surviveable. the commander found himself in a destroyer up against a battleship. that is not a good situation. did he turn away from the ship? no, he turned in to the fight, and that is what commanders from the lcs do. cost -- there's nothing out there that can match the cost of the ship. i will be anxious to li corkersten -- i will be anxious to listen to you telling me this is wrong. why should we buy when we did not know what we are getting? we built this and had no idea they would be able to do the job. we found out they did not.

we stopped building them. we sent a ship radar can to the sea before it or print the fleet will tell you how to fix it and then you do it. what do i want the ship to do? the design it for the mission. can it did the mission from day one? not always. why two types? we will have 27 of each type. think of the cruisers. they were pretty much the same hull model, but they were different. one had surface-to-air missiles on both ends, whereas one only had one. 27 ships is more than you need to gain efficiencies.

let me tell you, we are born to single down to a common combat system, so any sailor can go to the combat system of the other. where singling -- we are singling up on communications sytems. the only people who will be different will be the electrical guys. that will be it. this will be an effective platform for our fleet. do we know everything about the vessel? no. are there going to be problems? yes. the problem then was talking about -- ben was talking about, we went into it and created a matrix. 25 of the 62 are incorrect. not one of the other issues that were highlighted by ben we were

unaware of and we do not have a plan of action. ben mentions the crack in the lcs1. have been it has already been fixed in lcs1. this is a learning may become not one that is unafraid to say we made a mistake. as we see what works, we will fix it and if we cannot fix it, we will stop building it. hon from my perspective, the fleet designed is a capable design. the lcs is the ship we need to fit this design. this ship is first as a small combatants. it has to prove itself. it has a new maintenance team pick/

ladies and gentlemen, i will tell you right now this ship will sail in the fleet. it is a warship. sailors will be darned glad they are on it when the time is. i look forward to your questions. >> thanks to everyone for attending. those of you watching on c-span, i want to thank our staff and my colleagues who has been studying the navy for me several years now. trawls will tell you i have been wanting to do something on the navy for a long time. i am pleased with how this came together. i cannot think anybody more qualified to speak to these issues. that is an excellent

presentation. i see a number of familiar faces in the audience, including a couple of my classmates from the george washington university and rotc program. i am from maine, the home of portsmouth naval shipyard. how can i not be a naval partisan? preble. is greenvil it is important for those of us who care so deeply about the navy to have this kind of the discussion because if we do not scrutinize every single one of these decisions, and i met -- i admit we're making bob's job

harder -- we need to have this kind of discussion because if not others will have it for us, including people who do not have the same commitment we have. that is how i come to this issue. the lcs has had problems. we know about this. i know a thing or two about deploying on a first class ship. when i reached the ticonderoga in 1990, it had been in the water at nine years and we were still working through the problems. critics they have responded to his issues, believe they have addressed the issues for getting this program on track. the want to dwell on

specifics that was raised by lcs1 and look past that. eric talked about the national security cutter. we wrote a paper making the case rigates. we think there is an alternative. i have seen a change even in the last few months. there were many people who had skepticism because it was small, because they wanted a big ship. there has been skepticism about small ships for a long time. a lot of people -- the commander wrote the sad truth is where well past killing this program, and this will make it to the fleet. the big question is, how will we

manage to optimize a sub optimal platform to give commanders the best platform given its limitations, and how do we employ it in a manner that does not imperil our sailors? lcs will be a gift that keeps on giving. you can guess i am the one yapping from the cheap seats. are other aspects of the program that deserve a second look? do we really need two different types of should we revisit the decision to go with two very different designs and not a down select? at the 11th-hour the navy decided otherwise and congress capitulated. i want to emphasize i am opposed to a dual buy in principle.

when i was on tie khorana -- ticonderoga, i did not know whether it was that kind of ship until i walked on the quarterback. and many surface people, the same goes for this dvg 51. if you have not memorized all whole numbers, can you look at two stores and say that is one and that is the other? anyone at all looks at lcs21 and lcs2 says they are different ships. when i pulled up -- i'm getting ready to go on deployment, i could walk down the pier to any

class, walk down the same passageway, and bald davao's -- -- unbold the valves i needed. i was not supposed to do that, but i was responsible for getting a ship under way. i canalized -- cannibalized valves to make sure my ship was deployed. the same ship. another case, there is the training pipeline. we got ready to deploy , i totwo officers, two of the finest i ever worked with. they came on mineshaft.

-- they came on my ship. the qualified in about a week, and were engineers first way -- midway to that first dupont. the training pipeline was identical. some of the other training for the systems -- this is a problem you can solve with more money. there will be some training that is unique to the vessels. i am sympathetic to the idea of having multiple crews assigned to a single ship. it makes sense to me. how does the training pipeline support that? can you to deploy a guy who starts on 1 and go to 2?

that is my question. other conservatives. -- other concerns. these vessels are suppose to the impact -- supposed to be minimally manned. it is unermandermanned. the navy may be increasing the crew size more than that. you start to trade away some of the advantages. my bottom line is we are treating dozens of warships, and i'm not opposed to small warships at all. we are trading away in lieu of a fewer number of other small warships, with a vessel that has

a single mission in mind. models, yes. i think undersecretary work made a compelling case. trading off one vessel against the other, i have to say it, we have made this decision to build large aircraft carriers, at least $14 billion to build the next one. i would be shocked if it comes in at that. it would be 28 lcs's. the opportunity costs are not just in the surface fleet. we have an opportunity cost versus all surface

combatants. we plan to build 12 of the ohio class, and the target cost of $5.3 billion. two months ago the navy estimated that the chip will cost 11.7 billion, and last year cbo estimated year the ship will cost -- and that number looks pretty daunting. these are opportunity costs. if we decide to invest so much, we're giving up some in the budget unless you believe that the shipbuilding budget is likely to increase. it is important to dwell on these numbers. i say this not because i have something against submarines. i do not think we need 10 or 12

to have a credible deterrent. coon even-- even if the submari survives, i do not think it is obvious these need to be as expensive as kurt burch accents. that me close with a different picture beyond what has already been said. of what to say a few things about the mission. it is an age-old question. a key component of the mission is reassurance. discourage other countries from defending themselves. that is what that means. they are reassured. they do not need to do these things. there is this notion that one country providing the services, and other countries would not do

as well or they would mess it up. it is better for us to be doing these things. look at how this works in practice. a recent case in that south china sea. we will defend the philippine territorial claims against completing -- competing claims by the chinese tric. others are not worried because the u.s. navy has their back. in the context of the surface fleet, we're building a coastguard cutter for other people's the coasts. that is what this is. other countries are choosing not to build anything alcohol -- at all. they have grown accustomed to this. they have sheltered under our umbrella for a long time.

they are not worried. some people in this town, many people in washington, like it that way. they like being the world's policeman. if others are less inclined to defend themselves and their interests, that is ok. i thought see things differently. my colleagues see things differently. we doubt premises of global -- supremacy -- we doubt they would do so as long as the taxpayers are picking up the tab and as long as the u.s. navy is on the front line of every potential dispute.

we are a lonely but not alone in this fight. data shows most americans want for others to shoulder the burden of defense. one poll thousand the number sent americans think we spent too much money defending others. 79% think we spend too much money defending others. the nco mike mullen proposed a 1000-ship navy, envisioning a system in which the united states would remain the preeminent power second to none. he also envisioned that other countries would have navies that would be capable of defending themselves and would contribute to global security in a major consistent with their interests and capabilities. our current plan seems to be headed in exactly the same

direction, and i hope it is not too late to revisit that situation as well. thank you. >> before we get to questions, ben, you were very brief. do you want to say anything in response to the other comments briefly? >> we will save it for questions. >> i will ask a couple questions. this is for bob work. alternatives to lcs were mentioned. if the navy were forced by the congress to not buy lcs, what would be the navy's first choice as an alternative? >> if we were told to truncate lcs, we would continue building

the berk line until we can understand exactly what we wanted to do. the national security cutter, when i wrote that, i was writing it if you could afford it, you could do as a presence ship. we cannot afford that type of niche capability. the national security cover is not the ship. it cannot operate the mission models of an lcs. and it would be good for sailing around, but the lcs is good for sailing around to. the national security cutter is not a viable option. there is. frigate that we could build up. let's assume you could build a good frigate for $750 million.

all the costs overseas, they do not put in the robustness in a combat ship as we do. it would take several years to design, several years to build. if we were told to stop the lcs now, would be disastrous for the u.s. navy. make no bones about it. the size of the fleet would surely shrink drastically. we do not see anything on the market better than what we are building now. >> second question. there is a theory that future of the surface may be is to become the below service may be because of the marriage of ballistic missiles with better surveillance technology, meaning big metal objects on the surface

of the water will be driven toward the shore. i am interested in the navy's view on that. >> when i was looking at the plan, that was one of the things that jumped out to me. if you look at the plan, or submarine fleet is getting smaller, shrinking, whereas more surface fleet is increasing marginally. a lot of the issues he said there to mind. we have the chinese with some of these guided munitions that look at our big carriers as giant targets. if we are meaningfully talking about projecting force projectingsubs crape for taking out subs and surface combatants.

i would like to hear more from the navy about why the decision to go away from subs. >> eric? >> i have nothing. >> there are different schools of thought spirit that threat to surface vessels, any navy vessel, is going up. supersonic cruise missiles are proliferating. that threat is going up. there is one school that says submerge the fleet. that is great if all you want is a fleet good for war fighting. if you want a fleet that sales the oceans and operates to promote the peace, a summer easing -- a submarine is not good to do that. you take your packets of destroyers and atomize them and buy 300 or 400 smaller ships.

that is good in principle, we were going to design fleet, we might be able to do that. we are going that way but in a different direction. then there is the people who say go unmanned. if you go there, these threats are manageable but we are probably two decades away from something like that. the u.s. navy's position is you go after networking and you try to make your fleet more powerful through networking and allow it to compete. also will after directed energy weapons ultraman and where did magnetic weapons -- and electromagnetic weapons. we think we can pursue that fourth path until this time to make a second move but we don't

think we're there yet. we have not gone away from submarines. we have a requirement for 48. in the 20's, they start today but that is a reflection of does not building a lot of submarines in the 1990's. we cannot build our sub-fast enough to replace the 45 that will retire each year. we're committed to 48 and will get there. we will go through that trough. each of the fleet has a problem. the summer on this -- the summer and has a problem in the 20's and the 30. the amphibious ships are hurting right now. when you are trying to figure out how everything works together with in a constrained budget, you cannot have everything you want and you make trade-offs. we are very committed to submarines. we just will go through a trough as we try to get out of it. >> to audience questions --

please wait for the microphone so that everybody here and on tv can hear. on surname and affiliation and try to end the question in a row? rather than giving a speech. who is first? in the back, middle, yes, sir. this question is for the undersecretary and i will not ask you about the lcs. you said we do not need frigates. there is some indication that things could change that with the next five or 10 years and do you concur and if there is a decision with the environmental change that we need frigates, we won't have them, what do we do and that contingency? with the asia-pacific pivot with

the vast size of the water that you need blue water, long endurance ships that the lts may be can fill that role as a frigate. with the soviet model and a global seapower inventions, we see that model clearly with china. with an aspect of maritime congress that could be interdicted with china with their energy independence. we may be see another indicator that we might need to interdicts chinese merchant shipping or protect our own, is coming for the region. with the lesson of history, protection of shipping were critical missions and we had to develop ship class is pretty fast. with decentralized operations over a vast area to counter the chinese capabilities, it seems these indicators are leading to an area where we may need for

guess. if we get to that point, what will we do? >> this goes back to fleet designed. the way i think of ships in the world -- where it on the guided missions regina and you count the number of battle force missiles that are carried by ships. cruisers, destroyers and things like that, forget, are hard to delineate what it is. we have decided to build what i call large and network battle command -- combat combatants. with large muscle cells. not too many other maybes do that barry we have overcapitalized. the 600-ship navy, we were building to that. that was a signpost for the mid- 1990s. at the high point of the 600- ship navy, we had 73 cruisers, guided missile cruisers and destroyers. today we have 84.

we have said we will have a big top end and that's where we put our money. if you're going to build frigates, i would argue that if you drop down to 75 big boys, cruisers and destroyers, and you wanted frigates, you would not buy them out of the lcs tonnage. you buy them out of the big boy topnnage you'll get about 48 missiles. what you need is some thing to escort your combat logistics' for ships. the lcs with the original design for its anti-submarine or model as a barrier platform. it was going to drop sensors and sit there on the line and go after enemy subs. we looked at the ship in the pacific and we said we need to be able to escort our combat logistics force and now the lcs will have a terrible death so

more with a multi function totwe array and torpedo alert system and a helicopter. it will be every bit as good of an asw escort as the fg-7 ever was. if we need anti-air warfare capability, the ship at 3,000 tons as the margin to put on more missiles. we have a lot of flexibility here. if we want frigates or over what escorts, we probably build up from the lcs-line. if we want frigates, we republic bill down from the cruiser line. you can mix and match any way you want. the real key about designing a fleet is having on ramson of france. -- the real key about designing a fleet is having on ramps and off ramps we can do all sorts of things. you want to have multi-role

sheds and on ramps and off ramps and right now, we just don't need for it. >> there's a question of range. in the early stage, 1 &2 we were trying these things out. can you speak to the range of what you expected the ships -- the opera -- a normal operational mode, how long these things can operate independent and how you are addressing that early vulnerability. ? >> this was a design that was made to the high speed of the ship. there is a healthy debate within the fleet as to whether you need a ship without high speed when you have helicopters and small interceptor boats you could shut out of the back end. that decision has been made. on the normal speed reg propofol, this ship will be operating on the soles less than 15 knots.

with that, it has more endurance then a fg7 because that has to light of a guest turban. -- turbine. a gas turbine. it is when you have to go 40 + knots that should burn fuel fast. it depends on how you do this. admiral part d said i really want this ship to be able to close with a carrier strike team. that means the speed of a defense has got to be about 16 knots. lcs-3 which is the follow on from lcs-1 has a six-foot extended transmitter and can get at least 60 knots. it should be able to keep up with a carrier strike group. it has 21 days' worth a presence on board it will go out for

about 21 days. it can get into very small ports all over the world. we think they lcs it will operate four. we could not base four frigates in singapore. we can base for lcs' and they will operate out of singapore with a 21-day endurance and they can exert enormous amount of presence and influence in that area. we're looking for other places we can base forward. you have to think that it takes 4.56 ships to get one for under a single crew system. think about that for a second. you have to buy nine ships, cruisers and destroyers, to keep two forward at any given time. the lcs is designed for everyone out of two ships to be forward. we have to prove but we think we

can. i think the point on crew size is right. this reminds me of the example of the amount of sailors. we don't think it will be 50% bump thought i am certain the corporal the ship will be slightly larger. one of the key things we're thinking about doing is increasing the bunk size. it was designed to have three bombs but it is only designed for two right now. - three bunks. we're working that through them and next. >> the gentleman in the middle right here. this discussion reminded me of

my early days in the navy. the prayer was a magnet. someone could suck up the cat -- captains attention and life could go on. lcs has become a magnet. the argument against lcs are different. -- having navy's hat such a problem getting lcs behind it? >> i want to start out by answering the question. i think that maybe he has a messaging problem right now. on the one hand, bob says the lcs will direct it to go into combat on day one but i heard he will not send it into a robust environment which is -- which means it is not going into combat on day one.

the navy has gutted messaging problem with this issue. level onee built to a survivability. there are three levels of level one has been logistics ships, level 2, amphibious ships, and laboratory york cruisers and destroyers and aircraft carriers. lcs bill to level one, it would export ships would not normally send into a combat environment even though bob says we will send them into a combat environment on day one of the conflict. i would really back to get bob's enter to this trade and tourism serious? -- disconnect between different parts of the navy and how this ship will operate in a wartime environment. >> both of the comments are spot on. this ship is so different than anything we have ever put to sea. that is why the skepticism of the ship is so pronounced. you have to prove it. on the waterfront, is in the

missouri friend of mine, you have to show me. the sailors to run the ship, if you go out there and they say what you think about the ship? we just sent admiral raodne to lcs1. they sat down with the crew to tell them everything that was wrong and for them it was crew size. they thought it should be bigger. the one i horizon-range weapon, we want one, too. there is a lot of skepticism in the fleet of the way we will man it and maintain it. this is healthy skepticism. we have to be able to show the fleet. in the past, it has been the c &o, the navy and civilian leadership that is been trumpeting the show. we have two at sea and they are starting to see a change on the waterfront. they are saying okay, if we do

this to the ship, we can do best. that is what happens whenever we go in. we are not over the hump yes paris of a domestic problem. one of them is what the c &o was talking about, he was at a specific question about the western pacific. he was saying you cannot send the lcs into the western pacific. it would be operating as a combat logistics' ship escort tourists away would still be in combat but it would not be in that high end system. in thel have eight lcs' gulf. if the war goes down on that date, they are inside the environment. they would go out and start seeking fast attack craft or sweep mines. they will be in the fight. it is a level one +

survivability ship. it has more they come back -- combat logistics' force ship. if it finds itself against an opponent that outguns it like any ship ever since the navies have been born, it will of the problem. for the three missions as currently designed for, fighting against fast attack craft and fast in short tech craft and against the diesel submarines and minds. it will be more well-armed that any of the ships currently doing and mission now. you have to look at it in terms of fleet design and what the ship brings to the fleet. >> let's go in the back in the middle. , on the isle. >> regarding the affordability

of the ship, the navy wanted as much as commonality in its warships and we moved away from that because we allowed contractors to do more which is why secretary winter complained about subclasses of ship having different components in the supply system and how much stress that was putting on it. how will we not get into a situation -- two distinct class, two different -- two different sets of machinery? are we going to get into position where you have independent class guys and where we had a mcm? >> this is a learning navy. if you take a look at our history and you see some of things we bought and said that was not the right thing and we are more than willing to say we made a mistake.

one of them is of having two in production now is that one of the two ships turns out to have more problems than we expect, you have another option. both ships will be able to perform a mission well. the lcs1 is our swartm killer./ you could put a 76 millimeter on the steel hall and you have all sorts of different options. we like having two options right now. if we build two, 27-ship class is, that to be more than not to suggest -- sustain the class as we have now. ship class ishave

bigger than 27 per to focus on combat systems, commonality, c411 systems commonality, weapons systems, halladay once you get that, the only thing you are looking at is the whole machinery if differences. it may turn out it will be better to single out the one that is not our plan now. front, sir.right in >> i think is fair listen to the panelists this morning that there is a view that there is not an alternative to lcs. if that's the case, and i believe it is, what should be made -- what should be navy's priority be on lcs/ this is a ship the navy will

buy, what should be the priorities going forward with respect to lcs? >> i would certainly probably agree will have a bunch of l c s'around. the navy will have another decision point. they will be wondering how to continue to test of programs. people did not realize that the navy has gone through multiple swings and the elks es program. it was opposed to war is to be a down select in the early 2000's and then there were going to keep building two types to increase competition and a change the acquisition strategy and in suits -- in summer 2010, there were two ships that were so attractive to the navy that they decided to change

syntactics. the navy has a wide set of options. i don't think necessarily necessarily has to continue s -- with the budget problem, at that point. they will need to find out of the do something else after experimenting with a the lcs. do they need to do a whole new design? a free gift-sized chip will not be cheaper than an lcs my hope is that the answer would be that they don't know. they have to get out to work with ann c. howard works and what they can do and what they can't do and make appropriate changes were different or four

ramps to the future. that is my view. >> i don't take it is true that i have resigned myself yes. -- myself to this. i have been concerned about the dual by strategy of two very different -- this is two 27- ship classis, not one class. it is on a reasonable for those of us concerned about the cost to question why the down selector is not etched -- executed the way was supposed to be. we need to revisit that. is that their intent to to

single out but that may be an option the future. i think that would be wise statement as well. is a question as to what point you choose to single out and what criteria do you use for assessing which of these two ships -- they have different advantages. if you single off which advantage which a privilege or the other and what would you build in lieu of, the other vessel, when i talk about an alternative, it says eric and bob both agree that for its size should is cheaper. of not entirely convinced that but i will accept that. midi and not a partner at a free of size ship. might be the size of a corvette is so on popular in the navy initially but have had trouble

dealing of his more warship. the fleet is adaptable and the fleet can be convinced of the merits of a smaller vessel is the alternative is a less capable vessel that is twice as acts -- as expensive than twice as large. i am not giving up on the question. but it is still worth asking the question -- can we develop an alternative? in the meantime, could we experiment with keeping the remaining frigates and service/blogger and extend them and spend a couple of hundred million dollars even and keep them in service a little order to buy up time to develop an alternative? that's what we talk about in the proposal a report on the table. >> did you have anything, ben?

>> yes, in spite of my criticism of the elsie yes, i am a fan of this mission, of going for it. of getting into this entire access areas. the content for my criticism for that. i am not opposed to this mission. i think there would agree with chris that the dual by a single issue. i am not convinced that we need two different areas to do this mission that half it is an important mission. we have issues with iran in the straits of hormuz. these are incredibly valuable areas we need to make sure we have access to those areas. mm a fan of the mission bfi and an ardent critic of the ses in general. >> for the longest on, we convinced ourselves jsf program

was one aircraft with three different missions and the got ourselves into trouble because it is three different aircraft. the-35b is as different from the a model as elsie s2 is for one. they look more the same but that is an entirely different aircraft. yes, from lummis time we we singled outain how britain may lcs 2 becomes the pacific ship with long legs. there is a huge aviation capacity. maybe that will be the specific pacific ship. it is a great swarm killer and very maneuverable. you can upgrade the steel hulls.

having these two different ships right now, we believe is a tremendous advantage. i say that 3,000 tons next the she pushed -- make the ship more susceptible to the fleet. this was the smallest ship that could operate the helicopters. that was the limiting design. if you want this ship -- what you need in the literal? robert, and little boats, and helicopters. that is what the ship brought to the fight. if you need upgun irt to qa frigate, it can carry bigger guns easily. 300 tons was dilemma of the mission we wanted but it also made it easier to sell. the first thing we have to do is address issues that have been brought up. there are 62 issues and we think we have answers to every single

one. there will be more issues we find blood whole lot and get those fixes into the production line, first thing. second thing is get the court criticized right. we're probably too low and yet to figure that out. 3, single out the combat systems. if you do that, you know become interoperable with him decide the fleet. four, make sure the mission modules work. as things fall out or we fall of a beauty and the ship, you have to prove to the guys on the waterfront that the maintenance and janice dean that we have will work. will not be a do that until we get a couple of more on the fleet. let's not just talk or think about the three mission modules this ship as now. let's think about all the other mission modules that my people to carry on board. to give it more as an e evolutionary two-state system. forget those six things right,

the navy will go all in. it would get only four of them right, there will be skepticism and questions. it would get none of them right and will not build a ship. we are confident you can solve all six of these things. >> i think the key oversight issue for congress is the mission modules. in my mind, that is the number one question. which needs to be addressed. when will they be delivered? how much will it cost? what is the capability? are they interoperable? can you take one of these and take it from alcaeus [laughter] 1 and put a lcs2. you have to factor in the mission modules. the ships are now with their sold as if he does not -- if you do not count the the track names. >> tr have toiage so let's

grab three quick questions. the gentleman in the middle and the gentleman appear and you have to ask after word if you can. >> we talked about the navy n usingsc's. it cost $750 million and will have its own logistics system an independent rating system. this is an institution looking at leveraging stores of of u.s. taxpayer dollars. why is the coast guard not having a need for this? why are we getting more bang for the dollar that way. >> right over here. >> you were talking about off

ramps and you brought up the example of jsf. if resources are the main constraint, how will you sell the issue if you don't have the resources to purchase was necessary? >> finally, right here -- >> many have said the navy will not have the money it needs for ship building plans it has put forward. what do you really need to buy? you may be several billion dollars short of what danita -- need on a regular basis. >> i will take a shot at the other question. i wrote a report that looked at

that question. at that time, circumstances would suggest the coast guard would not have been interested in the alcaeus because it would have been more expensive and wouldn't have the range and the endurance. assuming we get the fix is right and the problems that were just pointed out might be worth all look again at from the coast guard for to do. you can do 16 knots and get yourself 7000 nautical mile range, which is what lcs would have in your talking about $450 million for the platform, i think would be worth while so you could reinvested this question for the felts. i defer that one. >> i will give it a try. >> i think the coast guard right

now is struggling mightily to get there seventh and eighth national security cover into their budget. they have it even more difficult time right now. then i have was called the supply.e saga they have that decision facing an animated and a l out that thecs is an option for the bike ms speak for the coast guard. they have a very tight budget and once we get this a vessel into syrup production, it, a ship coming off the east of allies will be an extremely cost-effective ship. it is up to the coast guard to make that decision. on the resources, we went for one of the biggest strategic changes in my view some people

in the 1990's and i think there's nothing like this since 1953-1934 when president eisenhower came into office. he was faced with the war in korea and need to get out of the war to balance the budget. he made some major changes. if you take a look at what we just did, essentially, the prioritization that is unpleasant -- is implicit, this is the most maritime-friendly national security strategy document since the 1890's. that is my view. you cannot execute the strategy without a strong navy. if the resources are cut dramatically from where we are, we're havere-look at the assumptions we have made that we will get to 90 cruisers and so forth. we have 62 arley burkes and we

can bill the other 10 between now and 2016. we will finished the newbdg 10000's we will have 90 of these big boys. the lcs is coming down the cost curve like you cannot believe. we will get to a 300 shares by 2019 no matter what. what happens over long run? people ask me how i sleep. i sleep like a baby. i wake up every two hours. i cannot say what will happen very the only thing i can say is we are prioritizing and started to break away from the /.3 split. if we take more cuts, i would

expect more prioritization to occur and the department of the navy of the deal to build on its 300-ship navy. i could be totally dream. what would we die? we are buying the right stuff. we've got the best cruiser and destroyer in the world that will be better once we get to the advance missile radar. the lcs is unlike anything floating out there and i'm convinced it will be something. the va is bestssn in the world hands down. like the walzg class, l.a. steve: more allied a ours. every single one of the new ships is the best in the world. i would continue to buy what we are doing. how come back to you and said i've got to have a different plan. the surface navy has a very

bright future. there is a lot of people would like more ships. we all would. the plan and we're on right now, we think we can afford in think it is with the nation needs. >> all right can't answer body for coming. pleased to join me in thanking our speakers. lunch is upstairs. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> comment shortly at 2:00, john paul stevens retired in 2010 after 35 years on the high court is the third longest

serving justice in new york history and he will speak of the mark all institute about his time on the court. present on, announced in april he will work a medal of freedom to justice stevens later this year. we will have it here on c-span. from the spring court, they'll hear a case brought by a bunch of americans suspect the blog permit is miles -- bonds in their americans. they said the plan does have no right to sue. the justices will hear the craze in the tour -- and the court that meets in september. they also said it will not hear the case of a boston university student challenging a $6,500 penalty for illegally downloading music. coming up at 4: 30 eastern today compress and obama will hold a news conference at the close of the two dead date unable meeting in chicago. most of that is focusing on everest to

>> consumers are frustrated now that they're mobile devices and smart phones are a working slowly. >> for robert mcdowell on spectrum auctions. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicator's." >> florida senator more robbia spoke at a fund-raiser for the south carolina republican party saturday night. he called president obama the most divisive figure in american modern history. he said the obama present state has been destructive. his instructor are about -- it is words are about half an hour. >> i think there is a special obligation on republicans in south carolina to fully understand and embrace how important this election truly is in 2012. every election is important, but i hope in the next few minutes i can make an argument to you that the elections this year are so extraordinary and consequential that it justifies

a sense of unity unlike anything we have ever done before. it is normal in politics to have rivalries. it is normal in the parties, and more diverse party than the democratic party, where there are differences in ideas and views. it's important for us to have these debates. that is why we have primaries and elections. that is why we have elections at the committee level. this is an important discussion that constantly allows us to renew ourselves. what i want to leave you with tonight is a sense that the stakes in this election are so extraordinary that come on like a reform in the republican party, we need to be more unified than we have ever been with a singular purpose -- to change to occupies the white house and the majorities in the united states senate. [applause]

one of the common themes you hear in politics is that people are tired of the partisanship, bickering. i know this is a non-partisan crowd -- you hear that everywhere. why is everyone fighting? why can they not agree on anything? one reason i want to outline to you is these elections are not a competition between two different teams. politics is not a sport, although we often feel that way. there are true, real-life consequences for the people we elect and the choices that they make. this debate we're having today in america is literally between two very different views on the role of government in our country and our role as the country in the world. there has to be a debate. there has to be an argument because there are two very different views of what the government would mean in our

life and what america should mean it to the world. in the end, the selection is nothing but a choice between those two different views. whatever choice we make is the one that generations of americans will have to deal with and live with. it will impact people not just here but all over the world. in order to understand the choice before us, it's important to remind ourselves of who we are. i say this to you because, i think, oftentimes those born and raised in this country in an extraordinary era of prosperity and freedom come at it is natural and human to take that for granted. maybe we come to believe this is the way it is always been. and this is the weight it always was. it is not. the life you and i lead, the

freedoms and opportunities, the prosperity we have known, it is not just our river but unique. not just today but in the course of human history. the truth is that almost anyone that has ever been born in the history of the world has had little to no role to play in choosing the people who lead them. and those are the stakes of this election. this is not about whether conservatives or liberals win. for most of the people in the world and in the history of the world, your future is decided before you take your first breath. what do your parents do? who was your family?

who'd you know? how well-connected are you? these things decide everything. you're trapped and limited by the very circumstances of your birth. this has been the rule. , not e, not the exception. some brave men decided to write the declaration of independence -- [applause] this was a political document about the principles in that document or not release political. there are moral and spiritual principles. they were simple principles but profound and powerful. did not make these principles of and there were not the first read about them. the root them nonetheless. the principals were as follows -- every human being ever born anywhere in the world is equal. number two, that every human

being anywhere in the world has certain rights and that the source of these rights is not your government or your laws or your leaders. [applause] that every single one of us, every person, not every person born in north america, every single person has certain rights that come to you for your creator. had no government has the right to demand -- deny you these rights creed of the government tries to these rights, it is an illegitimate government. these are simple concept. as americans, we say, of course. but most nations in the world don't live by those principles. those are revolutionary words at that time in a world where leaders said the name should put us positions. at a time when most people were told that you can never be more

the winter parents are grandparents are, the result is that from those principles sprung a nation. it is a nation living by these principles that led to a system of government and laws that have provided us with political freedoms of like any that man has ever known. it also created an economic system. for as much as our total freedoms and liberties get attention, it is our economic liberty that provided for as a level of prosperity and opportunity that few people if any of ever known in the history of the world. the source of our free enterprise system finds its roots in the notion that every single person has a god-given right to fulfill their potential and pursue their dreams. you need to be willing to die

for these principles not for yourself but for other people and nations all over the world. [applause] that does not mean america is perfect and i always got things right and it does not mean that history is without struggle and mistakes. because of those principles, and the freedoms and prosperity that it gave us, over the last 230 some odd years, the american people have crazier the single greatest nation and society in the history of the world. this is not about whetherthis is about defining what kind new century. the policy this president has political leaders. a marriage composite greatnesswe are not a great nationwe have been a great nation source of our greatness. whose stories will never be told the cover of a magazine. about them. scratch piece of paper takeand it works. everyday people from all walks to get the right to the doctor. do [applause] know there is a role for thewe

believe in the safety net to provide for themselves. to help those who have fallen to stand up and try again. that. [applause] over the last 200 years and since the end of world war two, america has been the most powerful nation on earth. [applause] this is all true. this is not even a topic of debate to you and me. we see it as fact. we know it to be true and so does much of the rest of the world. this idea that somehow america is different and special and unique has always elicited a doubt and giggles from some who observe the american political process. there are those of american politics today that really don't believe that. they will never admit it. you'll never see a candidate for president stan before a television screen or at a debate

and say america is just another country. actually, maybe you will. [laughter] they usually try to avoid it. their actions speak louder than their words. it is in their policies so he truly come to understand how they truly view america. first they don't really look believe in the american free enterprise system even though they give lip service they do. free enterpriseenter also creates great inequality. what requires a strong political leaders to protect us from ourselves. to destroy our welcome balance our lives. they don't believe in american power. they don't believe america should be involved around the world and we need to work more closely with extra national organizations. they have a role to play but not at our expense.

certainly not at the expense of -- expense of our sovereignty and leadership. it is in their policy come to truly understand how they view the role of government in our lives and america in the world. that is the story of the last 3.5 years. the policies of the last 3.5 years are the policies that people who love our country have a very different view of the role of government in our lives and the role of our country in the world. their policies prove it. the choice for the american people is consequential. if the current occupants of the white house is reelected, it will reaffirm this view of our nation. it will reaffirm the role of government in our lives and the role of americans and the world. the choice we have before us today in 2012 is literally a definitional one. we are being asked to define not

just for ourselves but for our children and our grandchildren and for the world what kind of america this will be in the 21st century. those of the stakes of this election. this is not about whether conservatives or liberals win and not about whether republicans or democrats win. it is about defining what kind of country we want. and what kind of role we want to play in this new century. the debate is fundamental -- the policies this president has chosen to follow our policies that tell us that the essence of our greatness is our government and political leaders. while certain the government as important as a role to play, america's greatness is not founded source and our politicians. we're not a great nation because great presidents.

we have had great senators and great congressman. we have been a great nation because we have great people. it is our people that is the source of our greatness. [applause] is the story of everyday americans from all walks of life whose stories will never be told, whose faces will never be on the cover of the magazine, there will never be any movies about them. yet every single day in real ways, they are not just changing our country, they're changing the world. people have a business idea to call the money out of the bank and open up a business and the works. thousands of people today are feeding their families can no have a job. everyday people from all walks of life who don't sit around and wait for the government to give

them a ride to the doctor. they take their elderly neighbor in their own car to the doctor. that is what americans do. [applause] everyday people from all walks of life understand there is a role for government to play, of course there is. we believe in a safety net but not as a way of life. we believe in a safety net as a way to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. to help those who have fallen to stand up and try again. the role of our government has never been instead of a individuals as citizens and neighbors and parents and members of the community. our people still understand that. [applause] sometimes our leaders don't understand this including leaders in our own party.

as a senator there are twa's that i can address an issue. -- there are two ways that i can address an issue. sometimes even if your intentions are good, these actions can be counterproductive, especially if you lose sight that at the end of the day the true source of our great as finance itself in our people and the role they play in communities. when government begins to crowd that out to begin to crowd out the true essence of what makes this different from the rest of the world. [applause] so the president and his party's view of america's government in our lives is a failed one. it has not worked. these ideas have not worked out in the real world. for so they get frustrated.

and they cannot win on their record. they have chosen to go down a different road, one that i think is destructive, counterproductive, and very unfortunate. for all the policy disagreements with the have with the president, it is are to understate how much he inspired people across the country for years ago with promises to unite america and left it up. the man who occupies the white house today is a very different person. we have not seen such a divisive figure in modern american history as we have the past three and a half years. [applause] because he cannot win on his record, the president has decided he must divide us in

order to win. he must pay americans against each other because that is the only way he can get the 51%. on issue after issue, cause after cause, the strategy this white house and party is employing is a destructive one that pits americans against each other. rich versus poor, men versus women, never have we seen such an effort to divide the american people in an effort to win an election as we have seen today. i will tell you why it is so destructive. fifth this is never what it seems. never have we been a nation that has taught our children that the reason for you to do better is for somebody else to do worse. never have we had believes that the way to climb the economic ladder is to pull someone else down from the economic ladder.

[applause] never have we been a nation that has told people the reason things are not going well for you is because they are going to well for somebody else. never have we been a nation that takes our children and shows them stories of those who are successful and teaches them to end the instead of celebrating it. never have we got our people that the only way we can do better is for others to do worse. we have never believed that. that is what other people believe. that is what other nations do. that is why people leave those places and come here. it did not work there. [applause] in an effort to win this election, they tried to divide

us against each other. the problem is if it works, it will rob us of what makes this different. if it works, it will strip us of what makes us exceptional. not just today but in the the history of the world. this issue is very important to me. when i get to speak at evens like this on saturday nights, it causes me to reflect a little bit. five decades ago my father worked on saturday nights, too. his job as that of a bartender. he stood at a bar for decades working hard on behalf of his family and his children. my father was born into very different circumstances than mine.

i was bored a citizen of the greatest nation in history -- i was born a citizen of the greatest nation in history. a strong and stable home that encourage us to dream and it never taught us to believe anything was impossible for us. the very purpose of their lives was to give us the chance to do all the things they never could. sometimes those of us forget that our parents were once our age. >> you can watch the last few minutes of the speech online and we take a lot to the [applause]

[applause] >> justice stevens is, in my mind, the very perfect justice to the supreme court. but let me tell you why. because his life experience is so broad, his compassion is so deep, and his intellect is so very far-reaching.

let me tell you how i first met justice stevens, because i think it offers insight into the kind of human being he is. many years ago, in albuquerque, new mexico, justice stevens and his wife applied to play in a bridge tournament. one of my partners at the time invitee he, his wife, and i to dinner. i could not imagine meeting a justice of the supreme court, let alone having dinner. we had a very incredible dinner, which justice stevens told us all about what it was like to be a justice of the supreme court, go to a bridge tournament, and have no one cared anything about except what you had just played. [laughter] they felt quite free to tell them what -- to tell him what they thought of what he just played. [laughter] at the end of the evening, there was an uncomfortable silence. he finally said, gregg, don't

you want to invite me to come to your firm to meet your law clerks? of course, we could not imagine having been bold enough to ask him to do that. so, in albuquerque, new mexico, in the summer, in a law firm of 21 people. -- in a law firm of 21 people, our firm thought we were the smartest human beings on the planet. what happened was even more remarkable. when justice stevens sat down in our very small conference room in the old bank building, which had been most famous until that moment because the movie the muppets take manhattan had taken place in that conference room, he spoke for a few minutes. and then he said, but i have questions to ask you. and he spent the rest of almost two hours asking people what it was like to practice law in

albuquerque, new mexico. what it was like then to be a law student, come to a firm, what things people were worried about, what was important to them, what they saw as important for the life of the law. that kind of desire to continue to understand what is going on in the lives of all kinds of people is, when combined with his great scholarship, combined with his great intellect, combined with his great compassion, has made him, to me, the very perfect person to sit on the highest court of the land. justice stevens, it is an honor to have you here and we thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. before i read you my prepared

remarks, i have to acknowledge what a nice introduction that was. i remember that occasion very well, too. parts of the reason i was very happy to be privileged to park -- to talk to the american bar association when roberta was the first woman chairman of the association, and it reminded me, it is not particularly relevant, but it reminded me of the fact that i sort of specialized in talking at the bar association occasions honoring first woman president. [laughter] i had previously talked to the bar association in chicago in the 1970's. she was then the first woman president of a major bar association. of course, roberta followed up. i was told at the time, she was going to have a sensational

career, which, of course, was obviously a correct prediction. but this afternoon i thought i would make a brief comment about bush against gore. because there has been so much discussion of the remedy issue in that case in which a majority of the united states supreme court issued a stay that halted the recount of the florida votes in the presidential election of 2000. the significance of the courts opinions reliance and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment has been generally overlooked. as you may recall, in the 2000 election, florida used of voting machines to count ballots on which the voters had use a stylus to punch a hole in a small circle opposite the preferred candidate's name.

of voters who successfully followed the written instructions punched a complete hole in the ballots and their boats were accurately counted by the machines. the voters whose votes were not counted by machines fell into two categories. over votes and under votes. the over the boat category included ballots on which the voter had tried to vote for two or more candidates for the same office. the under vote category included ballots in which the voter had designated just one candidate, but had failed to make a complete hole in the ballot. there were two subcategories of under holes -- hanging in chad's and a dimpled chad's. [laughter] in the hanging chad category, the punch out peace remained partially attached while the temple chad contained an

indentation or an incomplete call. the florida supreme court ordered a manual recount to be conducted according to the voter standard established by florida law. that did not require a recount of over votes, presumably because a re-examination of those ballots would seldom revealed the identity of the voter's preferred candidate. the question, which first week -- with respect to under vote's however, was whether the voters intended to support for any presidential candidate at all. in the typical case, either a hanging chat or a dimpled chad opposite the name of one candidate would both identified the voters preferred candid and indicate his or her intent to cast a vote. during the recount election, officials differed on the question of whether to count

both deviled chad's and hanging tads, or just of the latter. in other words, those which could be seen through the edge of the chad. in palm beach county, for example, officials began to follow a 1990 timeline that true distinction between hanging and dimple chad's. they ended up counting both subcategories of under votes. in its opinion, the supreme court described that change in a way that gives of the reader the impression that the officials had engaged in a standard endeavor. the opinion stated, palm beach county, for example, began of the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded completely unattached chad's, switched to a rule that was

considered a vote to be illegal if any vote was seen to the chat, switched back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a rule only to have a court order that the county considered dimple chad's legal. the paragraph is misleading in two respects. first, what it describes as switching to a new rule, was, in fact, on a clarification of the original rule that consider only hanging chad's as a valid of votes. byrd's new rule was a hanging chad was one through which any light could be seen, that evidence that the chat was not completely attached. second, with the paragraph described and said changing back to the 1990 rule was just a continuation of the practice of not counting dimpled chad's.

of most significance, however, is the fact that the county ended up treating temple chad's as valid votes before the united states stream -- supreme court ruled. while the court opinion is misleading in other respects, for example, the implicit suggestion that the failure to order a recount of the estimated 110,000 over votes was in error, despite the lack of evidence or argument suggesting how one could tell which cand idate the voters intended to support, the principal point i want to make this morning provides the absence of any rationale supporting the reliance of the equal protection clause. the equal protection clause requires states to govern impartially. it has a particular course in in that -- in prevent -- protecting the right to vote.

there must be -- a price -- including groups of individuals that are defined by race, by political affiliation, or by the residents in a particular location. one-person, one-vote rule, for example, prohibits states from giving greater weight to votes in a rural area than two votes in densely populated cities. if residents of palm beach county, or perhaps members of the democratic party, were more likely than other voters to produce a dimpled chad's rather than hanging chance, there might be reason to hold that counting the two subcategories differently would violate the protection clause. there is no claim by anyone in the case that variations and the method of accounting under votes had any systemic significance. the mere possibility that

accidental and random errors would not establish any intentional discrimination against a pre-identified group of voters and would not even establish any unintended disparate impact on either candidate, and surely there would be nothing even arguably discriminatory in applying a rule that counted dimple chad's like hanging chad's. it is the supreme court part -- opinion in ordering a recount is flawed because the double chants, as well as hanging chats, should be counted as valid votes. that omission was a flop. it could have been remedied by quoting two sentences. the objection that to be counted

the chad should be fully punched out, or at least it should be a hanging chat on the outside of the bout would set too rigid a standard for determining whether the voters intended to vote for a particular candidate. many voters to be disenfranchised, without their fault, if, for example, it indicated the voters intent to vote. i have never thought the supreme court's opinion was flawed, however, because it seems obvious to me that the intent of the voter standard on which the florida supreme court relied was sufficiently clear. my principal purpose in calling your protection -- in calling your attention to the clause in bush against a gore is to

emphasize how that would invalidate the hideous political behavior that remains popular today. surely, it must follow, that the intentional practice of drawing desired boundaries of districts in order to enhance the political power of the dominant party is unconstitutional. in recent cases, however, members of the majority of the supreme court have written opinions that concluding the absence of standards precludes judicial review of even the most obvious manners. several separate opinions, including one written by justice lewis powell in 1986, as

well as several of my own, have identified such standards that even a majority of the court has applied manageable standards in cases involving racial issues. to recognize those standards is less a category of intentional discrimination against the voters, so long as the discrimination is predicated on the basis of political party and about race. for example, just last year, 83- judge district court rejected the challenge to maryland redistricting plan because it had not shown that they moved african-american voters from one district to another because there african-americans, not simply because they're democrats. even though the plaintiffs claim

that democratic politicians had drawn district lines to reduce the number of republican held congressional seats was, in the words of the court, the ec's claim to accept the fact julie. the court declared it the weakest claim legally because the supreme court has declared partisan jurying non judgmental. i will refrain from repeating the arguments i have made on this topic, but it seems appropriate to remind the members of this distinguished audience that both legislatures and courts have adequate power and should recognize their responsibility to curtail this insidious bracket. the tools for doing so, as a judicial matter, have already been developed in the supreme court's racial prudence and a number of separate opinions by members of the court discussing political issues. thank you for your attention and

continued efforts to improve the law. [applause] >> and justice stevens, i think it is tomorrow we go to our election law project. we'll do so with some serious words in mind. justice stevens has said he might answer a question are two. i told him there might be some reluctance of people to raise their hands, having listened to oral arguments on at least the radio. but if there are people who would like to ask questions, please stand at one of the

microphones. and identify yourself. yes, sir. >> good afternoon. my name is paul. i am from chicago. did you see this morning that the supreme court affirmed the decision in the legal voters of women in illinois, there was another partisan gerrymandering case. is it >> is there a follow-up question? >> all i can say is it is news to me. [laughter] >> more bad news. >> yes, sir. >> could you speak up a little bit? >> justice stevens, since your analysis of the supreme court's

opinion in bush obverses gore indicates how seriously flawed that opinion was, do you think that politics played a part in the majority's decision? >> did i think politics played a part? i do not know. [laughter] [applause] >> well, if they are quick questions, there are three microphones. 3, 5, and a 4. >> john oakley, from davis, california. for nearly 40 years since the 1974 decision, the supreme court

by a 5-4 majority, no matter who seems to come and who seems to go, has great difficulty getting the sovereign immunity right. you famously said, in your dissenting opinion that the court's 11th amendment law eliminates the character of an institution. i have always wanted to ask you to expand on that analysis. [laughter] >> well, i have written a great deal on that issue. i do not have much to add. i would really recommend that you read a book called the five chiefs. it has a lot to say on the issue. [laughter] >> yes, sir. >> good afternoon. from baltimore, maryland. i was wondering if you have any thoughts about the direction

jurisprudence is likely to go or how it might be looked at in the coming years. in the supreme court. >> of course, that is a very difficult question. it depends on the attitudes of who is sitting on the court. i really think that, with regard to the death penalty, which i'm sure is at the back of your mind with this question, i'm not sure that the democratic process won't provide the answer sooner than the court does. i do think there is a significantly growing appreciation of the basic imbalance in a cost versus benefit analysis. it does a lot of harm. it does very little beyond the imposition of life without parole.

it includes the continued risk of an incorrect conclusion by the jury, the death penalty having been rejected in michigan on the basis of the fact that two men had been executed and later it was established there were innocent. i think the public generally will come to realize that there is a tremendous waste of resources in administering the death penalty and they will, on a stage-by-state basis, reached the conclusion. >> thank you. [applause] >> michelle fields, from washington, d.c. can i diskette your thoughts on the supreme court's in pending health-care decision? [laughter] and whether you think it looks bad or good for the administration? >> i have not read the brief period [laughter]

-- the brief. [laughter] i make a conscious effort without trying to decide a difficult issue without hearing both sides of the case. >[applause] >> i wanted to tell you that i finished reading "five chiefs" last week. i hope everyone reads it. it is not only the perfect book for people who are not lawyers, it is an amazing explanation of the profound importance of the court's decisions in our country. it is so important because some people have never read the united states constitution at the end. i give it a five-star amazon review. [laughter] ladies and gentleman and the justice stevens, what an amazing event for all of us to have you here. thank you.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are honored to have among us, at least two of justice stevens former clerks. one, we will be talking about in a moment, who we hope you'll consider voting for as a member of our counsel. the other one of our reporters who you will see shortly, cecilia. justice was a little worried as we came in whether the vote would come for carol.

i assured him that with his endorsement there was a really good chance. let me call up to the podium, justice christine, please. we will do the work of our nominating committee and the work of our membership committee while the next reporter comes up and we get ready. if you would come up, we will get ready. i want to say, to all of our new members, we do not always get to ask questions about what is going on the court. the chair of our committee has been detained. i that they could do whatever

they want. apparently, that is not true. according to our membership committee [unintelligible] >> i happen to know that judge rogers was contained. [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> we will leave this event at this point. justice john paul stevens required from the supreme court two years ago. president obama announced in april that he will award justice stevens the medal of freedom at a ceremony later this year. today, there were a few announcements from the supreme court. they decided to hear a case

from people who suspect the government is monitoring the communications overseas. the obama administration argues that have no right to sue. also, the court said it will not hear the case of a boston university student who is challenging a $675,000 penalty for illegally downloading music. coming up live on c-span at 4:30 p.m. eastern, president obama will hold a news conference about the two day summit in chicago. you can see that at 4:30 eastern. wisconsin voters head to the polls early next month to decide whether to recall governor scott rock -- scott walker two years after he was first elected. you can see that debate live from milwaukee friday night.

also on c-span radio and online at c-span.org. president richard nixon secretly recorded his phone conversations and meetings. this weekend, hear more of the nixon tapes with conversations between the president and director richard helms. also a couple of fbi director, .. edgar hoover > >> i think you are right. >> what is your public-relations schedule? >> you should remain silent about it. i would. >> listen 90.1 fm

and streaming at cspanradio.org. in recent months, -- >> b >> this is just over one hour. >> we will call the meeting to order. today's hearing is on stemming the tide. we thank the witnesses for being here. we welcome the assistant administrator. we also welcome the united

states coast guard. thank you both for being here. the tsunami also left a legacy. we will be dealing with it for many years to come. debris is nothing new. flotsam and jetsam has existed for centuries, made worse by plastics which do not degrade. to some, like to beachcombers to find occasional messages in a bottle, it is a delight. to others, it is an eyesore or worse. many recognize marine debris as a threat to fish.

the tsunami unleased debris on an unprecedented scale. a 5 million tons were swept out to sea. 1.5 million tons of tsunami- generated debris is still afloat to the west coast of north america. there's 3 million pounds of multi-plastic trash which will flood into are ecosystems and is already here. we read the press reports of soccer balls found and styrofoam washing up. these are mostly the high windage items which are pushed by wind. then there is the boat that appeared off the southeast panhandle and was sunk by the coast guard. i want to thank you you for doing that. even a harley davis which washed

up. from alaska to washington, the supports of tsunami debris are coming in, including reports of containers of hazardous materials. that is not surprising when you consider an entire city of gas stations, barrages, where houses, stores, all washed into the sea and air now becoming a threat to our shores. one of my constituents has worked on debris for the last decade. he describes tsunami degree as a slow-motion of environmental disaster. it will exceed any event to hit the west coast, including santa barbara oil spills. i'm submitting a letter for the record. it has helped coordinate marine

debris efforts in alaska four years. they model drift patterns. i know he has further plans to monitor this problem. my constituents are asking if this debris is already here. what is the plan? how are we going to deal with this? how are we going to clean it up? in some cases, some think it is a little late. over the years, this debris will be arriving to our shores. that is the purpose of today's hearing. give the clear threat what is our national plan to stem the tide of the tsunami debris. all i've heard there's no threat of radiation since it went out to sea before the reactions failures, i want to ask what you know about what is being done because it is a concern to many. i want to emphasize a point

before i call on the ranking member from washington. we had a hearing probably two, three months ago. this issue came up. we were told that things are -- we were monitoring it carefully. every time ago back to alaska, i hear over and over again the large sightings and are photos here of some of the debris that is starting to washup. it is growing rapidly. and all seems like there is a, let's-just-see-what-happens plan. that is unacceptable. it will be in the washington ports for market and the highly prized copper river salmon. we fear what the impact may be. we are anxious to hear not about what you're seeing today, what are the plans. what are the efforts,

aggressively, to deal with this issue going forward. let me have the ranking member maker comment. >> thank you. i think it is important to provide this kind of attention and focus on this critical issue. on march 11, 2011, there is a 9.0 magnitude earthquake causing a tsunami that resulted in tremendous devastation, killing 15,000 people with an additional 3000 still missing and presumed dead. some waves travel more than 6 miles inland and reaching a maximum height. this disastrous far worse than what had been considered the worst scenario.

they put into place efforts for preparing for disaster. despite the tremendous loss of life, callous people were saved by preparation. the japan coast as predicted vicby sea walls. in many cases, sea walls were built to hold the seat. tragically, at least 101 designated evacuation sites were flooded. people who thought they reached a safety in time still perished. it demonstrates we can always do better to prepare. the heart-breaking job of cleaning up still continues in japan. is this going to be the most costly, a national disaster in history. 5 million tons of debris was

swept into the ocean. much of this was offshore. as much as 1.5 million tons continues to flow and carried out to sea. this debris puts household goods, toys, everything. the first item to arrive in our waters were high-windage items. a recently updated model that includes actual wind and conditions from past years suggests that tsunami degree will likely arrive in the winter of 2011 to 2012. the first confirmed debris from the tsunami was identified on march 20 of this year when a fishing boat was spotted off the coast of canada. recognizing that this ship post a navigating hazard, the coast guard sent it. we do not know how much more debris is coming our way.

nor do we know what will wash ashore. glow-windage items will take longer to reach the pacific coastline. it will be years before we know the extent of the debris. this will add to the already substantial burden that marine debris places on our ocean. along with my west coast colleagues, the states are now being directly impacted by these events. most recently, last year, in co- sponsored a program known as marine the greek program to develop a plan on how best to respond to marine debris. and yet, despite to the ongoing problem of marine debris and the expected increase from the japanese a tsunami, the present budget suggest a reduction in funding to this program. i am pleased the senate

recognizes this problem with the marine degree program. providing the resources necessary to continue tracking and addressing. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. keeping us up to date, regarding the status of the debris for the tsunami. the coast guard is the first line of defense against this wave of debris heading toward our shores. i would like to hear more about the plans in addressing this consequential issue that has potentially safety and navigation hazards. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. let me turn to the senator and then we will start with the hearing. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to thank you you for holding this important hearing. i would say washington, alaska, oregon, california, and tell why are all united over the concern of the economic impact -- and hawaii are all united over the concern of the economic impact this can have. it supports over 165,000 jobs. is there anything -- anything that threatens that coastal economy is something we will pay a lot of attention to. we are here to talk today about how we will get a response about what this thread is and a response plan to this threat. we just marked the one-year anniversary of the devastating tsunami in japan. because of our connection with japan have a great sense of loss and we remember those people who lost their lives.

seeing the devastation when the waters rolled back shock to many people, not just in america, but around the world. it is become clear to us what unbelievable economic damage can happen and what can be at risk. for our commercial and the vessel construction of ships, our tourism, are driving ecosystem, we all want to know what the plan is. mr. chairman, i feel like you do. if we're not getting the answers that we need. our like to give a statement from the mayor of the city of long beach. he reflects a staggering concern about what tsunami debris can do to his community and he wants to know what the plan as. mr. chairman, we also have just in this last few weeks an incident in washington state where a crabber a vessel was sunk and now oil leaking from that vessel is threatening the

shellfish industry in our state. it does not take a lot to imagine what would happen if the response is just, we will sink it. when something much more allow britain to stop before it reaches our shores. that is what we are hoping to get from a response plan today. it is very important that the resources are there, to mobilize the emergency resources funds from the rapid program, the national science foundation which would give scientists the tools that they need to analyze and tell us about this likely debris chart and where it will go and what areas it will impact. we also want to make sure that science is available to other scientists in the northwest. it is almost as if there is an attitude that the tsunami debris is top secret and we cannot get the information. it should not be this way.

the information and data, the best-guessed scenario should be available to everyone in all communities so that they can plan. we would hope that once that is made available, that would be part of an action plan that then could be implemented by the coast guard, by noaa. it would give these communities the sense that they could plan for what is impact could be. we know that not every plan is going to be carried out in the detail that it was originally proposed. but having no plan or not understanding with the plan is or just counseling people individually does not give the people of washington state the certainty they would like to see. many people said we would not see any of this impact until 2013 or 2014. and now ships and motorcycles and various degrees are showing up. people want answers. i look forward to the witnesses being here today.

i know they play a role and it on their shoulders. this center is going to continue to push until noaa provides the answers we deserve. thank you. >> thank you. otherwise known as, noaa. please. >> thank you. chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify and the activities to address the marine debris from the devastating tsunami. noaa is very concerned and is taking active steps to address the threats. we are leading efforts of the federal, state, and local partners to collect data and produced possible impacts. i would like to give you some

background on the program and highlight a few examples. the noaa marine debris program is small but has a huge impact. it tells of the losses to committees, safety, and navigation. of the program of 13 staff conducts activities to search, prevent, and protect marine debris from impact. the program also spends a significant portion of its budget supporting the long-term community-based removal projects. these benefit coastal habitats and waterways, but they are not rapid responses. it has historically received approximately $4 million in annual appropriations. regional coordinator is located throughout the country provide support to these projects.

as chair of the inter-agency debris coordinating committee, we work to assure cooperation between national and international efforts. since the disaster struck japan, noaa's activities have been to understand the scope and to what degree. noaa quickly mobilize after the data to share information on the threat. add to the same time, we are coordinating heavily with state and local response agencies to share information and a draft response plans that will help reduce impacts to communities, natural resources, and navigation. the government of japan estimated that the tsunami swept -- into the ocean. it is unclear how much of it,

and what types. we expect it could be buoyant items such as floods, containers, and vessels. radiation experts assure us that it is highly unlikely that any degree is radioactive, but it is a possibility that oil drums will washed ashore. it may have drifted in the ocean -- in the north pacific ocean. it is roughly the three times the size of the contiguous united states. in order to locate significant concentrations are large items, we are gathering data from multiple sources, including ocean vessels and satellites. our models which a given us an understanding help focus our detection and response on decisions. noaa regularly has eyes on the water to report sightings, shipping vessels, scientific expeditions, and -- the u.s.

coast guard reports any sightings and in some cases, they conduct flights with no representatives on board. we also continue to receive and analyze high-resolution satellite imagery. our model may be located. we will continue to use sophisticated technologies as they become available to us. noaa is also getting the baseline information of a tsunami of debris. changes in volume and type of debris may be the only indication, so no plans and all the impacted areas over the next two years. in order to gain a more complete picture of where debris is showing up, we have established an e-mail address for anyone, including the general public, may report sightings. the report will likely fall to the states in most cases.

with tight budgets, they must make the best use of existing resources. there is a range of scenarios which will include rapid response protocol. the results will help guide workshops planned for alaska, oregon, and california. -- leveraged every resource available for the debris. however, comprehensively responding will take substantial resources. emergency trust funds do exist. it is critical that we continue to have a complete engagement at every level. federal, state, and a local. it will not be possible to coordinate a did agree response without cooperation.

we look forward to working with the committee to achieve this outcome. i would also like to thank the committee for its attention and its continued efforts to reauthorize the marine debris program. thank you and i will of course take questions. >> we will ask questions in just a moment. >> good morning. i m carey thomas. i am delighted to be here and part of the u.s. coast guard. i am pleased to have this opportunity. that applies for the u.s. waters. the potential impacts of the marine debris created by the devastating 2011 japan tsunami. my duties include overseeing management policies.

some of which, included marine debris. today, i will provide coast guard efforts and delineate the coast guard's efforts in supporting noaa that reenforce the principles of preparedness and address the challenges caused by marine debris. as discussed by mr. kennedy, noaa is the lead agency for marine debris. the coast guard supports noaa by participating as a member of the committee. the reduction act of 2006 identifies the agency that no one should coordinate.

with lead removal actions under the national contingency plan for any debris that poses a threat of potential oil or hazardous substance to the environment. the coast guard may also develop -- the service also has the authority to destroy these hazards, fidel to make sure that we are protecting lives and preserving property. the coast guard typically works at our army corps of engineers. to address the matter. coastguard resources and personnel may also be requested by noaa by conducting overflights with representatives

on board. the coast guard and noaa actively work and plan together at all levels and all agencies. they provide strategic coordination and awareness. the districts are all actively engaged with all partners. the coast guard and noaa recently coordinated 10 meetings in oregon to provide information on authorities and capabilities. similar meetings are planned for similar months. we also participated in a workshop in washington state's to support a marine debris contingency plan. the coast guard sinking of the vessel provides an excellent example. several weeks ago, the service

began tracking that the vessel which was originally cited by the coast guard. our airplanes conducted daily flights. we use this information. the projected path would take it near the entrance of a waterway where approximately 800 commercial trances, including takers, procured in the proceedings six months. the vessel's location and projected crash made a serious threat. the coast guard deemed the vessel to be a hazard and on a profit, the coast guard successfully sank the ship at sea to ensure that navigation. having been the captain of a ship nearly 20 years ago, i was very proud of their ability. in this case, we saved a supply

chain. coast guard will continue to work closely with noaa to address the hazards. thank you and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. the way i like to do the committee, sometimes we will interject with each other. we only have a limited time today. let me first state my observation here. i have some specific questions. we are going to do a lot of planning. a lot of discussion and meetings. they are fearing the federal government will not respond to clean up. if this was a one time event all let months -- at once, we would declare it an emergency.

but this will be for who knows how long. there'll be a need for funds, but states will be responsible. to be frank with you, it is somewhat frustrating to hear that statement because the role of the federal government in emergencies is to assist states not just to say, is your responsibility, good luck. that is unacceptable. t think the federal government has a role to put some hard cash? it will be easy to monitor because there'll be a bunch of junk piled up. but that is not the plan. that is just more studies about

what might happen -- what happened after the fact. can you give me some more commentary and what's noaa's role should be? and you have the funds to do it? and where we not stepping forward, saying the we're going to develop plans to clean it up with the federal government participating, financially and otherwise. i hear your testimony, you read it well. i have read it. there are a lot of good discussions and so forth. what we are hearing is, it is here. how do we deal with it? a have aoes noa responsibility? and of the president did cut, put back in, and it won a shifted to another agency.

you think you have enough money to do cleanup? do you think that is a role -- >> there was a lot in there. you can come back to me when i do not answer the way you like. well, maybe not that. i'm afraid i'm going to at least in part answer in a way you do not like. first of all, we do not have the funds to mount a clinic, especially in areas as remote as alaska or some of the northwestern hawaiian islands. which is to not have those funds. >> can i ask you -- if you have a partner or a sign groups? -- assign groups? >> we do not have the authority to do the cleanup. that is not our responsibility. >> but the dollars that flow

through your system can go to organizations. >> yes, they can. and they have routinely for the last many years. that is a major component of what we do. with community-base cleanup programs throughout the state. yes, we do. >> in directionally, you do. >> indirectly, we do. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not. >> do you know how much would be required? >> i do not. why it is so important to get a better handle of how much did 3 we have out there, where it is, and when it will come ashore, is to be able to make that kind of estimate. i can tell you that a small sailboat, 30 feet long, that we wanted to remove debris, $1.2 million for that one at sell a book in that remote area. >> why? >> because of the remoteness, because of the logistics.

ships, people, something to do away with it. -- you have to have ships, people, something to do away with it. we can go around the country into a focus cleanup, especially in a remote area, the expenditure is just extremely high. we cannot begin to touch, especially remote areas, if there is substantial, new amounts of debris. >> let me pause you. we will keep bouncing back. here is the challenge. you just gave me one example. you know what something costs. we do not know what we need. we do not know the overall cost. three or four months ago, we asked the specific question in anticipation of the debris coming.

have you made a cost analysis of what this will be? the answer from your administrator was no, which made no sense to us after year the after year knowing the tsunami did happen and it was coming. no analysis, nothing presented as a budget request. then we get the budget and it is not in there. there is a cut to the degree program. do you see the dilemma? how does that happen? this is our frustration. it is not like the semi-did not happen. it happened. we know about it. no one was questioned was coming in our direction. we did not know the level of risk. we ask a simple question of if you had planned for it and if you have some idea. that is how you develop a budget to prepare for such a thing. the answer was no. how do you respond to that? maybe you cannot. maybe there is no response. maybe it is a response i am not

going to like. >> i do not have an answer that will make you happy. that is for sure. i really do not. lots of priorities going on. a small program. we are out there. we do not know the scope. we do not have a clue. the idea was that an estimate would be extremely hard to come up with, but that is not a good answer. i think the real answer is, i would like to get back to you on the record and see if i can come up with something better than that. a lot of it is a small program, very busy, trying to get our arms around what is going on. the scope and magnitude of what a budget might look like, i can tell you to physically clean up all of the debris you could identify is cute. >> let me pause there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to follow upon the issue. how much do you estimate of the

1.5 million tons of debris that is out there will reach our shores? >> that is an estimate by japan. that is not ours. we have had to rely on them. in looking at the types of debris, there's virtually no research done on marine debris in the ocean will tell you if you have 1.5 million and leave it in there for a year, to that will still be fluting and available to come ashore. we do not have a clue. we have talked about going back and doing research. for the time being, we do not know. we have asked in a lot of places. the national science foundation does not have a chair for marine debris. it is not a well-studied aspect. we do not know for sure. we certainly know things like containers and floats and things

that have been discussed. a bunch of the 1.5 million was construction debris. after year, we've are not sure. >> i do not know if there are characteristics you can determine and assess. low windage items floats at or below the surface. there is no way of discerning how much? >> we really do not at this point. in our modeling deliberations, we have been working hard at trying. there are no models generated for marine debris. we're having to adopt oil spill models and other kinds. we're trying to figure out how windage versus the stuff on the surface and subsurface that is going to come in at a different level. that is why we're saying a couple of years. the occurrence will drive some of that more than the wind will

drive the other. a lot of speculation and guessing at this point. >> i cannot understand why there is a reduction in this program in terms of cost. from the beginning of its creation in 2005, the high was a little more than $6 million. now we're down to $3.9 million. i do not know if they have decided on a number. $600,000 last year was appropriate specifically for this program because of the tsunami. why would we not continue at that level? why not at a higher level incorporating the assumption we have an ongoing issue with the tsunami debris? we're just beginning the process. >> the main answer is there are

severe cuts across the federal government, certainly within noaa. decisions have to be made where you get the cuts. to me, the marine debris program started with me in its infancy. i think it is an important program. we absolutely appreciated the ability to have the $600 plus. if we did not, we would not have even the attention we've tried to put on the program. it has been very important to us. we hope we will find a way to continue to have resources to focus on the issue because it will be around for awhile. but there is the president's budget. >> i think we should be discriminating in terms of what is a priority. obviously, this is a priority. we should have some pre- planning and forethought involved in knowing the bulk of this debris will occur in 2013

and 2014. do you think the bulk will occur in 2013? >> yes. >> here we are facing reductions in the program that will be essential. ok. obviously, it does not make sense. that is something that has to be remedied. admiral thomas, we do have the characteristics in terms of determining the low windage items. is the coast guard making distinctions? >> what we do when we prosecute a search and rescue case is taken to account the information noaa provides us. we try to figure out what we're looking for. are we looking for a person, a boat, debris? how time passes, the effect of the wind and current, all of

that has on our ability to search for something, how long we're going to need to search. i had a case when i was in miami. we were looking three days at an area about the size of connecticut. 18-foot boats -- for an 18-foot boat with three men. we found among the third day 150 miles away from where they started. -- we found them on the third day 150 miles away from where they started. compared to the distance between the u.s. and japan, that is a significant problem set. it is a vast ocean. the coast guard uses noaa's weather to help guide our actions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. kennedy, dr. lichenko said

in march it was not determined that it would have a devastating impact. is that still noaa's view? >> i think the jury is still out. we have been doing a tremendous amount of work trying to locate debris where the modeling has projected it would be. in my testimony, i mentioned we have been to every possible venue to try and find debris, including looking with high resolution satellite imagery in accordance with the models say it should be. we have not been able to find any debris. that is not to say it is not there and we are not still looking.

i think the concern is not overreacting right now. we know there are places with more debris ashore. we have seen an alaska -- that in alaska. we have been out there with our partners trying to identify that debris specifically as from a tsunami. for the most part, we have not been able to do that. we know there is increased debris. we have not been able to find it at sea. we know 1.5 million tons went in the water. i do not think we want to get overly alarming with anyone in that we're continuing to not have any major evidence of debris in the additional come ashore. that is more of the thinking then that is not an issue. if 1.5 million tons of debris comes ashore on our coast, that will be a problem. we know that. >> i am definitely going to react when thousands of cans and

hazardous materials washed ashore with rat poisoning and gas. we're going to react. that has happened. the notion earlier when you said we do not have a clue about the degree -- debris, have we gotten all the information from the of the about the satellite imaging -- all the information from dod about the satellite imaging question wreck is there more data that should be made available? >> we started with commercial and available satellite imagery. we have progressively gone. we have progressively gone to other types of imagery, including calcified. we're continuing to have discussions for further classified satellite imagery. we are working down that path. we have begun to get classified

imagery. debris.sing at iit to find have we done every satellite out there that may be generating imagery? i do not think so, but we're having discussions about how to get to the next level right now. i am certainly not suggesting debris will not come ashore. the first thing we did when we started hearing about increased debris in some of the places in alaska is get out there with the coast guard to do surveys to find out if there is any hazmat in it. it is a different kind of issue if and when we have hazardous materials coming ashore. >> did you see the ship behind me coming christopher is a large vessel. >> the first time we saw it was

on a commercially chartered surveillance flight by the canadians. we did not see it on satellites or any other efforts we have underway. the first we knew was when it was reported to the canadian authorities. >> is there some reason why we cannot use all satellite information? is there something stopping us from getting access to this? >> some of the discussions we have been having recently are that the imagery is available, but do we divert resources looking at things that are pretty important from national security issues to do marine debris instead? it is an either or discussion we have been having. >> i guarantee we will get to the bottom of it. we believe academics can help

with better modeling. we have seen when noaa has the resources that great modeling can happen. we have great modeling now on tsunami response. if something happens with the cascade of fault, we can get the plants to the local committee a the community. the notion we're not getting a high, moderate, and low estimation to your plans to go with that -- we're getting caught off guard with the special showing up, and hazardous materials showing up. the notion states will be left to respond is not what we're going to do to protect our coastal communities. thank you for your statement on this. i am sure we will have more questions. my time is up, mr. chairman. parks i want to make sure you are aware that the modeling --

>> i want to make sure you are aware that the modeling we're doing is not done in a vacuum. the university of washington is working with us on models. we have been working with a number of academic communities throughout the west coast and hawaii. we are working with the local academic communities now to make sure we pick up their specific science, models, and data so that we are using their models and not just ours. we are trying to engage them. >> if i am correct, i think we used and the university of hawaii at a previous mark up in the committee when we return to make sure that your marine debris program was not cut. the modelling showed a very large field of debris, the size

of one of our large western states approaching us. that seems to be something that would be hard to miss. hopefully we can get to the bottom of this about the data. >> we will probably have enough time for another round. let me follow up quickly. i want to make sure you are careful with your words and i understand. this ship is a great example. my guess is the military data probably knew this ship was out there. if they did not, they have bigger problems. if homeland security and military did not know this ship was so close to the nine states and floating unmanned, i doubt they did not know this. i assume the armed services committee and the homeland security, my bet is that they knew. are you getting the data that

you need? i think it is a question of you getting access. they can still do their stuff. the military will never let you take priority. but getting access so you can observe areas that may have something of that size, that big. [laughter] i learned about what was happening when it turned toward alaska. a week later, the coast guard took action. that is not how we should find debris. are you getting access from the military and or homeland security that you need in order to do better modeling? >> we are getting access. here is part of my problem. i am not the one in the middle of the day today discussions. they are taking place. we have experts on our side working with nga and defense.

i want to be very measured in what i say. we are getting access to classified data. are we getting access to all classified data? i do not know. we might be. we certainly had nobody admit they saw that ship coming that we have been discussing this with. what we know is that there are probably other layers of data that we may not know how to ask about. we are in some discussions -- i do not want it to seem like everybody has not been cooperative. i think for the most part, they have. the problem is noaa is dipping into an arena we are not familiar with and we do not know who we should be talking to. >> we're interested in helping you get the data. we sent a letter to the

president a month ago to say to get you the data. for the record, we do not have a written response yet. house noaa -- has noaa asked the national science foundation for these kinds of issues, has noaa ask for money to help you move faster? >> we have had a discussion of the national science foundation about this. we used them effectively with the rapid response grants with deepwater horizon. they are helpful for us. >> this is a slow drive. >> they have money on focused research areas. they are receptive. i am not the one that had these discussions. it is related to me they are receptive but did not feel like they have the funds to engage. >> a sizable part of the debris,

either one of you could answer this. it is the issue of plastics, styrofoam, these items that when they come ashore, they stay for a long time. they are not disappearing overnight. they will not be biodegradable. tell me a thought on that. i am assuming a sizable amount of this is going to end up in the garbage back or on our shores. is that a fair statement? it seems like this is one of the products that is not sinking. it is not going to disappear in the water. it is going somewhere. is that a fair statement? it may break down, but it is plastic. >> i think that is a fair

statement. i do not think there is any question. i spent a lot of time on remote shores in alaska and everywhere. is there. >> is that a big concern? that type of product? >> it is a big concern. that is one thing the marine debris program has been looking at to get a better handle of the toxics and biological implications because it is so long lived and will be around forever. it will get interested and tangled. it is a huge problem. part of the complications with that debris and how it gets here is that there or two or 3 garbage patches around the ocean. it does not come straight across. some of this could be there for a long time before it pops out

of one of the patches. >> i appreciate you being here. i just saw one of your new cutters, a very impressive piece of equipment down at the dock. the comment dr. kennedy said regarding plastic is toxic. does this fall into your arena or not because it is still a product and not turned into a hazardous waste like oil or chemicals? >> the authorities we have to deal with oil and hazardous substances. in the ship that senator cantwell referred to, what we did when we realize the owner was not going to take responsibility, we open up our oil spill liability trust fund

and sent divers down to close up the leak did area -- the leakage area and to recover the oil from the ship. that is one of the procedures we do. it is a commercial office in the -- it is a commercial fishing vessel. plastics would not apply in this case. >> senator snowe? >> do you work with the coastal communities in terms of the potential of these hazardous materials to is the environmental protection agency involved? >> the national contingency plan developed after the oil spill in 1990 calls for the framework in which there are regional plans that need to be developed. there are exercises periodically.

the need to have local strategy that are refreshed and include the community and the education process of what you do in the event of an oil spill or if a hazardous material were released. >> we probably have done 100 meetings with the local communities from hawaii to alaska talking with them about what they might expect and some of the issues that might be associated with it. that is in addition to the planning we have done. we have been on the ground at the local level trying to make communities more aware. >> on the interagency communications, there are 90 different departments involved. you have a coordinated response to marine debris. how is that working? do you have the ability to respond quickly, particularly the coast guard?

it can be a navigational hazards. what do you do in that instance? >> i will defer to noaa because they are the chair. on the interagency committees, we do policy on search and rescue. we saw the response team during the deepwater horizon oil spill. these are limited resource times, but you need important work to be done. you have to bring all of these different agencies together. the army corps of engineers is a truly important part of a process to make sure the waterways can stay open so that the ships can keep moving in and out of the united states. >> it has been interesting. the national level coordinating committee has been more of an information exchange. the real effective part of the

coordinating has been going on in the regions. we have had tremendous participation by most of the federal agencies. routinely, epa, coast guard, different stations to parks and what have you. the real strength has been at the regional level. my team has repeatedly commented on how people have been stepping up to be engaged in the region. part of the issue is we have tremendous monuments and parks that will be affected by marine debris. all of them have to be prepared, too. it is not just the states that have issues. >> in your testimony with

respect to contingency planning, it is well under way in hawaii and washington. california, oregon, and alaska, how long does the planning required? >> it requires a complete willingness of the appropriate parties. that is why we emphasize that in the testimony. you have to have everybody want to be at the table to put the workshop together and develop it. there have been various states of interest and organization required to put these together. that is why these others are still evolving. what we have been able to do is develop a standard protocol as a basis for the uniqueness of each region. we're using up. a culprit in includes getting together -- it includes getting

the agencies together. what they would be looking for, specific issues. how we make sure we have radiation under control. how we make sure we get the coast guard and state folks and all of that. all of that is part of the package we developed. it has been slower to revolve getting the appropriate parties to the table in some states. >> is there recognition in these states about the potential, the magnitude of the problem? >> i think it varies a little. i do not do this day to day. i would defer. we know alaska and washington in particular are very interested. others know they are within the realm of potential impact. washington and oregon, alaska,

and why, we know clearly the have interest. -- and hawaii, we know clearly they have interest. this is a chart we have gotten from the university of hawaii. it shows the migration of millions of tons of tsunami trash making a trajectory toward the west coast. you can see by the size of the field we are talking about large scale degree -- debris. when you say know what -- when you say noaa is looking in does not see anything but you are working with partners, this is where your partners are seeing. i hope we can get the information to partners and come up with assessments about what we're doing. when our constituents go online and see this, they are very concerned. it brings up one basis point.

-- it brings up one basic point. we had wanted one of our local mayors to be here. i think because of scheduling we could not accommodate a second panel. they want to know, 911 operators want to know what to tell people when they're called about this marine debris. these local communities have tried to get an answer from th noaa. >> i cannot give you specifically what they're supposed to say, but that has been part of the discussion. it is part of the discussion that has been contingency plan development. we obviously need to educate

people better, but i think that has been part of what has been covered. i cannot give you the specifics, but we will get you something for the record. we are working with the local responders on this. by the way, at the university of hawaii is one of the consortium of modeling organizations that is working with us on the model that we are updating every two weeks. i do not think we have competing models. i think we have tried to make sure that we have gotten anybody who is involved in this and has expertise at the table to develop this model, at least as a consultant. >> long beach is a very beautiful part of our state. you would see that it is a very exposed parts on the coast of our state, a very large tourism area.

i want to get to something else, and i know we are out of time. another aspect is our migratory fish. these are a great part of our ocean species that migrate and they migrate along these paths of debris. what are the risks? >> i think you have stumped me. my fisheries colleagues probably need to answer that question. i am a little bit familiar with the issue, i have not heard in the context of our deliberations on the tsunami debris. >> just with what happened with deepwater horizon, people wanted those answers.

something that we hopefully will get an answer later for the record and we would appreciate it. we want an assessment is that kind of debris field is going through, and there are migratory patterns for these species follow these kinds of debris fields, what are some of the risks? thank you, mr. chairman. >> admiral, thank you for your attendance. i note some of us will have more records and -- i know some of us will have more questions for the record. we will keep it open for 10 days for folks to submit questions. i know you probably feel like you have been on the hot seat. we hope you did feel that way. there is a lot of concern. i know you care because you were one of the originators of the degree program. i know you understand it. my guess is that you would like more resources to do more and more. there is a huge demand, and

this bank be an opportunity to highlight what the nea -- and this may be an opportunity to highlight what the needs are for what you are doing. he made a comment -- he made a comment about the low, medium, and high risk analysis. every quarter, i last did the same question until we get an answer. -- i will ask you the same question until we get an answer. i hope that you can get the administration to respond on that issue. the last is recognizing that noaa has a certain role, but in this situation, maybe it is an analysis on how noaa response to the issues.

we are in a different ballgame. we will be in meant for many years. maybe -- we will be in it for many years. maybe noaa needs a more active role. i hope you take that back. the record will be kicked -- kept open for 10 days for additional questions. i have a feeling we will continue to have a great discussion on debris. thank you very much. the hearing is closed.

>> consumers are very frustrated right now that they're mobile devices are working so slowly. >> the universal service fund, competition for wireless space, enter new commissioners. tonight at 8:00. >> nato leaders are in chicago for a summit that started yesterday. this afternoon, president obama will hold a news conference. you will be able to see it live here on c-span. yesterday, nato secretary- general anders rasmussen spoke to reporters for about 10 minutes. he answered questions about

ending the war in afghanistan. >> good morning. chicago is a world-class city and leaders from around the world are coming here today i. i would like to thank the people of this great city for making us all feel so welcome. we are gathering here in chicago and for a crucial summit at a crucial time. we will take her decisions, and board for the security of north america and europe and for the

future of our alliance. our segment has three key priorities. -- our summit has three key priorities. keeping afghanistan secure, keeping nato strong and capable in the 21st century, and keeping our global network of partners solid. today, we will focus on security in an age of austerity. we will ensure that the alliance has the capability to deal with the security challenges of the future, even as we tackle the economic challenges of the present. we will adopt a concrete package of multinational projects which can provide greater security for all of our citizens at lower-cost. we will embrace a renewed culture of corporations, which

we call smart defense. i expect we will take the first step to make our missile defense system operational. tomorrow, we will shape the next stage in our engagement with afghanistan. we will complete transition of the security responsibility to the afghans by the end of 2014. we will continue to support them for the long term. together with our isaf partners, we will meet president karzei, leaders of many countries in the region and beyond, and key international organizations. this will be a powerful demonstration of the commitment of the international community to the future of afghanistan. we will also meet 13 of our most

active partners around the globe from europe to asia and the millions. -- and the middle east. today, security challenges are global, and they need global solutions. that is why nato will continue to cooperate with partners from around the world. we will build on our services so that we can provide more security for nato, for our partners, and for the world. >> we have time for just a couple of questions. >> [inaudible] what are the promises you got from the mr. hollande?

>> there will be no rush for the excess. -- exits. we will stay committed and we will see it through to a successful end. our strategy, our timetable remains unchanged. regarding president hollande's statement, i am not surprised that the newly elected president wants to keep his pledges. that is roh number one for a politician, to keep your promises. -- that his rule number one for a politician, to keep the promises. he has stated that france will be prepared to support afghanistan in a different way. that is very much in accordance with the strategy we outlined

yearsy with me mahen we met two ago. we are in the process of handing over the responsibility to the afghans. as the do that, the role of our troops can gradually change. from combat to support, and the number of our troops can also gradually be reduced. all that will take place in a coordinated manner and based on consultations within our alliance. i feel confident we will maintain solidarity within our coalition. >> [inaudible]

>> the question is about transit routes through pakistan. i do hope that we will see a reopening of the transit through its in the very near future. -- transit routes in the very near future. we give that a dialogue with -- we have had a dialogue with pakistan, we have negotiated. these negotiations will continue, but i am hopeful that they will be concluded in a positive manner so that we will see a reopening of the transit routes in the very near future. >> [inaudible]

>> no, i am not concerned about distracting attention from our summit. i am pleased that we, the peoples of the nato countries, live in free societies where freedom of expression is a fundamental value. that also includes the possibility to express your views for demonstrations. i would expect that such demonstrations would take place in a peaceful manner. let me stress that we have reached out to the groups of protesters. one of my assistants met recently with representatives of the protesters.

they got an opportunity to convey their messages directly to nato. we got an opportunity to explain exactly what nato stands for. >> [inaudible] >> the question regards canada's presence in afghanistan in the longer-term. my statement was not in particular addressed to canada out. it is a general statement from me as the secretary general of nato the i would appreciate if nato allies and also isef partners would continue to contribute to the nato-led training mission that will start

in 2015. that answers the second part of your question. i hope canada would be in a position to contribute to training activities after 2014. canada conducts training activities in afghanistan and we appreciate that contribution. i hope to see a continued contribution after 2014. having said that, at the end of the day, it is a national decision. >> [inaudible]

>> i think the clear message from the summit will be that we stay committed to our operations in afghanistan. we will continue on to transfer, to handover lead responsibility to the afghans according to the plan we have laid out already when we met in lisbon in 2010. this process has already started. a write-off of the afghan population lives in -- about half of the afghan population lives in areas where they have taken leave responsibility. this process will be completed by the end of 2014. this will be the message from the summit that we will continue that transition process according to the plans we have

laid out already. >> thank you during much. that is all we have time for now. -- thank you is a very much. that is all we have time for now. >> president obama it is said to hold a press conference from the nato summit in chicago. that will be live at 4:30. we will carry it on c-span. president obama and afghan president karzei met yesterday at the nato summit and they spoke briefly with reporters about their strategic partnership. plans for afghan forces to take responsibility for security in their country. >> good morning, everybody. it is a great pleasure to welcome president karzei to my hometown of chicago. he extended the hospitality to me after my visit recently.

during that trip to afghanistan, we were able to finalize a strategic partnership agreement that reflects a future in which two sovereign nations are operating as partners to the benefits and other countries citizens and for the benefits of peace and security and stability in the region and around the world. i want to thank president karzei for his cooperation and delegations hard work and helping us to achieve the strategic partnership agreement. the nato summit is going to be largely the focus -- the forum to ratifying and reflecting the broad consensus that some many of our partners have agreed to.

we are working with the afghans over the next several years -- has made excellent progress over the last several years. also painting a vision of post- 2014 in which we have ended our combat role, the afghan war is over. our commitment to friendship and partnership with afghanistan continues. and so the strategic partnership agreement, at this nato summit, all part and parcel of a shared vision that we have. afghanistan is able to transition from decades of war

to a transformational decade of peace and stability and development. i did want to express my appreciation for the hard work that president karzei has done. he recognizes the enormous sacrifices that have been made by the american people. as well as the troops of our coalition partners. we recognize the hardships of the afghan people. both of us recognize that we still have a lot of work to do and there'll be great challenges ahead. loss of life continues in afghanistan. there will be hard days ahead. but we are confident that we are on the right track and what is nato summit reflects is the world is behind the strategy we have laid out.

it is our task to implement it effectively. i believe that we can do so in part because of the tremendous strength and resilience of the afghan people. i think they desperately wants peace and security and development. so long as they are reflecting that resilience and hope for a better future, they will have a friend in the united states of america. president karzei, welcome. i am confident this will be a productive nato summit. i am looking forward to continuing to work to implement the plans we have laid out. >> thank you, mr. president. we have had a good meeting today. afghanistan reaffirmed its

commitment to the transition process and to the completion of it in 2013. and the completion of withdrawal from our partners in 2014. afghanistan is no longer a burden on the shoulders of our friends in the international community. afghanistan is looking forward to an end to this war and the transformational decade in which afghanistan will be working further for institution building and development of the government and the country, a better economy.

taking steps toward self-reliance and all aspects of life. in the meantime, the world community will be with us to make sure that we take steady steps. afghanistan will be largely defending itself and providing for itself. mr. president, the partnership agreement has turned a new page in our relations. the new page is a page of two

sovereign countries working together for the mutual interests -- i am bringing to you the gratitude of the afghan people for the support that your tax payers money has provided for the past decade. and for the difference it has made to the afghan people. to our educational health and the building of the afghan government. mr. president, afghanistan is fully aware of the task ahead and of what afghanistan needs to do to reach the objectives that we all have. in the meantime, until then,

thank you for your support. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. i am going to have a press conference. >> a little after the u.s. an afghan president spoke to reporters, nato's secretary general anders rasmussen officially opened the nato summit. >> chicago draws together in

many cultures. it is diverse, dynamic, and determined. many hundreds of thousands of people from chicago, past and present, came from nato countries in europe and from canada. chicago is the perfect place to renew our commitment to the volatile bond between europe and north america -- the vital bond between europe and north america. in a fast-changing world, we remain each other's indispensable partners. together, we will chart the course for our future engagement in afghanistan. we will make sure we complete transition to afghan security lead by 2014 and we will make

clear our commitment to a long- term partnership with the afghan people beyond 2014 so that afghanistan never again harbors terrorists that can attack us at home. and so that afghans can look forward to a better future in a stable region. we will keep nato capable of responding to the security challenges of tomorrow because no country can no continent can deal with them alone. we must embrace a renewed culture of cooperation to provide more security at lesser cost for all their citizens. together, we will make our partnerships deeper, broader, and stronger. today's threats are no longer confined within national borders. are unique network of partners

spans the globe is. -- our unique network of partners spans the globe. for over 60 years, nato has kept a safe, and it has helped keep the world secure. we know many of the challenges of the 21st century. we also know that the future is unpredictable. but together, we can face the future with confidence, what ever it holds. united by shared values and a shared purpose, we can find common solutions for common challenges. so that freedom, democracy, and prosperity will be passed down to the next generation. it is my pleasure to not pass the floor to president obama. mr. president? -- to a natural pass the floor

to president obama. mr. president? >> on behalf of all of us, thank you for your outstanding leadership. i want to begin by welcoming each and every one of you to my home town. i hope everybody is enjoying themselves. i understand it some took an architectural boat tour. chicago is a great place and we look forward to having you back again. so many people here in chicago trace their roots back to nato countries. it is especially fitting that chicago is the first american city outside of washington, d.c., ever to host a nato summit. given the moment of silence we just observed, i want to take the opportunity to salute the admiral, a general allen, and

all of our men and women who are serving in uniform on our behalf. especially those who are serving today in afghanistan. for over 65 years, our alliance has been the bedrock of our common security, freedom, and our prosperity. though the times may have changed, the fundamental reason for our alliance has not. our nations are stronger, and more prosperous and we stand together. in good times and in a badge, our alliance has endured. it has thrived because we share an unbreakable commitment to the freedom and security of our citizens. we have seen this from the cold war to the balkans, from afghanistan to libya. that is this. we need to sustain here in chicago.

-- that is the spirit we need to sustain here in chicago. when we last met in lisbon, we agreed to a bold plan of action to revitalize the alliance and ensure we have the tools the required to confront the changing and uncertain strategic landscape. here at this session, we can reaffirm our article 5 come that lead to our collective defense and to investing in the the defense capabilities and technologies that meet our collective security needs. in these difficult economic times, we can work together and pool our resources. nato is a force multiplier. the initiatives we will endorse today will allow each of our nation's to accomplish what none of us could do a shoot -- none of us could achieve alone. in lisbon, we committed and now in chicago, we are delivering. over the next two days, we will meet to charge the next phase of

the transition in afghanistan. just as we have sacrificed together for our common security, we will stand together united in our determination to complete this mission. finally, i look forward to our meeting with nato's neighbors and our partners around the world to have been so critical to nato operations, as in afghanistan and libya. it will be another reminder that nato is truly a hub of a network of global security partners. there is nothing else like it on earth. thank you, mr. secretary- general, for your outstanding leadership. thank you to all my fellow leaders and friends who are here. welcome to chicago. i am confident that the next two days are going to help to sustain and strengthen the strongest and most successful alliance that the world has ever known.

>> the nato summit in chicago wrapped up this afternoon. at 4:30, the president told the news conference at the summit. that will be live on c-span. we will show you a phone calls from this morning's washington journal. >> thousands of demonstrators took to the streets. with nato troops planning and advisory role by the middle of

2013. president karzei is here in the united states. he is launching a charm offensive. he is embarking on a determined charm offensive as he faces the prospect of seeing troops and dollar's slip away from his country. the afghan government has long regarded the nato alliance as a bottomless source of funding.

[video clip] >> afghanistan reaffirms its commitment to the transition process and to the completion of it in 2013. and the withdrawal of our partners in 2014, so that afghanistan is no longer a burden on the shoulder of friends in the international community or the shoulders of the united states and our other allies. afghanistan, as you actually put it, mr. president, " looks forward to an end to this war and a transformational decade in which afghanistan will be working further for institution

building and the development of sounder government in the country. host: that was the afghan president for the nato summit in chicago yesterday. we are getting some tweets and you can join that conversation. joseph writes -- here's the baltimore sun --

and we see some images in the newspapers today of what was happening both inside and outside the summit. here's a picture in the wall street journal -- then we also see images of protest from outside. here are some pictures of the washington post -- 45 arrests reported, war veterans marching and some have discarded their combat metals -- protesters were beaten with police batons and one serious head injury was observed. police have made 45 arrests and

four officers were injured including one in the leg. several protesters were also hurt. we are still getting more tweets and we will get to your facebook comments as well. let's also look at some details as the afghanistan plan starts to form in chicago as nato leaders gather. it says there finalizing plans to turn control of the afghanistan over to its own security forces by the middle of next year, a milestone on the way to concluding the combat role of the alliance by 2014. is nato moving at the right pace? what do you think? do you think u.s. involvement has the right tone and the right amount? let's hear from ralph, democratic caller in kalamazoo, michigan. good morning. caller: my comment is it looks like everyone is running into the same problem. the europeans and the united states, we cannot afford to use costly war.

all the recent reports that i hear on c-span, it looks like the taliban is not going away. they may in fact be stronger than they were, but the hamid karzai government is weak and that the country is under development and that we're not doing a good job of developing the country. i don't see the outcome -- it seems like it is a stalemate. i hope we can get out as soon as we can, and it looks like the europeans are trying to get out of afghanistan. cannot afford it either. they have their own economic problems. host: michael is on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. russia this year has 5% economic growth. germany has 2%. nato was set up to defend against russia.

now russia has sold aircraft carriers to india and other aircraft to china and has scrapped its tanks and aircraft. what should be done is to invite russia into nato. europe imports 80% of its oil and russia has used the model of canada and supplies the oil that the eu needs and then russia would not out arab oil influence. host: here's a comment on facebook -- here is more from the baltimore sun piece yesterday looking at hamid karzai's visit to the nato summit and putting it into historical context of what's

been happening in afghanistan and what's happening now. it says --

what do you think? they succeed? george's on the democrats' in miami, florida. welcome to the conversation. good morning caller:. i remember a line from "the godfather" it says to keep your friends' clothes and your enemies closer. we will not get the soviet union in nato because of past troubles. we don't want china to get in there because of lithium and opium. can get close, but not close as friends.

just close enough to keep an eye on what they are doing and maybe c-span.org. host: steve tweets -- looking more at karzai's relationship with the west, it says -- the article points out that he is bringing back sort of that spirit to nato yesterday and today. paul is on our democratic line calling us from oklahoma this morning. caller: good morning. on afghanistan, what needs to be done over there is get all

the countries surrounding it -- it is a landlocked country -- the other countries need to get together with the un and get agreements and invest money in that country on its national resources -- natural resources so that money can stay there for the people, good jobs in that country, get them away from the poppy plants. want jobs just like everybody else does. get those jobs in there and get the natural resources out to some ports or trains or some way to the other nations and that country will be better off. if you don't, when we leave somebody else will go in there at, maybe china, take over the country and all its natural resources and the people will be in the same shape they are in now. that is my comment on that subject.

host: if you like to join the conversation, give us a call. we just heard from a democrat. we also have a line for people outside the united states. 202-628-0184. monty writes -- let's listen more to president obama speaking in chicago yesterday. [video clip] >> we are working with the afghans over the next several years to achieve a complete transition to afghan lead for afghan security, one in which we continue to provide support for the afghan national security forces that have made excellent progress over the last

several years. and, also, painting a vision post 2014 in which we have ended our combat role, the afghan war as we understand it is over, but our commitment to french and partnership with afghanistan continues. host: that was president obama speaking yesterday. are talking about afghanistan, what nato is talking about, the drawdown, if not just of u.s. troops but also troops from around the world. let's look some more at how "usa today" is talking about the meetings that happened yesterday in chicagoland are continuing today. it says --

randy, independent caller in shreveport, louisiana, welcome. caller:hi. kind of a bottle for the last caller about sending the un. the un and nato are a bunch of white collar criminals murdering at the world. that's not going to do any good. we are the ones sucking out all the resources over there and wherever we go. it is all corporate. these people are just a bunch of crooks, a bunch of them. all the way from the local areas to the white house. it's a shame. it really is. people need to wake-up. when ron paul runs, that's who they should vote for to get

these people out. that's the only place to start. then we will go from there, i hope. have a good day. host: on facebook -- the question is where is afghanistan falling into politics? we see a story coming out today that says --

laura in baltimore, maryland, on our democrats' line. caller: hi, thanks for c-span. hamid karzai thanked president

obama for your taxpayers' money this weekend. we all should be really alarmed that we are spending $700 billion a year, getting back to the pentagon to spend on whatever they want. i am outraged, personally. a lot of people i talked to are. finally, people are understanding that we are having to choose between social services and unwinnable wards that we cannot afford. we are really hurting financially. i'm looking at a humongous class sizes in our schools, teachers laid off, and the republicans are talking about cutting medicaid and other social services. people should be outraged, absolutely. thank you. host: going off what laura just mentioned, let's read the hamid karzai comment. here's the "washington times" --

what do you think? you take umbrage about was president karzai has had to say about receiving american dollars? thomas in silver city. caller: there is compartmentalizing of our needs in america. they are good at growing opiates.

that government grows that stuff in the philippines as well and employees mercenary soldiers to grow it and protect it. we have a huge demand for opiates. if they can grow it, why don't we whyit? they could move to mexico and there's a similar climate and there's plenty of land. new mexico is a very poor state that could benefit. host: why build afghanistan's infrastructure, writes kathleen. good morning. caller: they had no idea that a

couple hundred years later we would be able to communicate so freely with one another. maybe it's time we removed power from congress and give it to the people. the first order for business to declare war, they should immediately petition the people first and give power back to the people to send our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters off to war. i think that it would be an opportunity to really change the world as we know it when we fight only just wars. host: would you think about protesters who have been out in chicago? we have a picture of mostly peaceful demonstrators in grant park in chicago. caller: peaceful protest is one

of the great -- our greatest moments of the country have comein peace. at the end of world war ii there will people celebrating in the streets because they knew people were coming home and we were not going to be? at war any more losing thousands of people. i just think that having that power in a concentrated group of people is not the way it should be any more. we could definitely, with the technology we have today, we could get a vote rather quickly, and it is just a different world. with the weapons we have today, is a dangerous world. i think the people have that vote, it could change the world.

host: for republicans, this is ray in california. caller: good morning, madam. i have a question. on afghanistan, i think the americans have made many mistakes, myself included. we don't go into a country this way. we should be respectful, take them supplies and tell them we are there for a short time and we're going to leave. but the way it was done, it was with a bullet. what do we get in return? a bullet. so it depends who is holding the gun. the only way we are going to appear that is for us to send people there with compassion, not idiots that believe in -- >> we are going live to chicago.

president obama is speaking at a press conference. >> thank you to my great friend, rahm emanuel, the mayor of the city of chicago. you are my neighbors and friends, the people of chicago, for their extraordinary hospitality. and for everything they have done to make this summit a success. i could not be prouder to welcome people from around the world to my hometown. this was a big undertaking. 60 world leaders, not to mention folks who were exercising their freedom of speech and assembly, the very freedoms that airlines are dedicated to defending. -- our alliance are dedicated to defending. this is a city of big shoulders, rahm emanuel and his team proved that this world class city knows how to put on a world-class event. partly, this was a perfect city for the summit because reflected

the bonds between so many of their countries. for generations, chicago has welcomed immigrants from around the world, including a lot of our nato allies. i would ask that i have lost -- i have lost track of the number of world leaders that came up to me and said -- and remarked on what an extraordinarily beautiful city chicago is. i could not agree more. i am especially pleased that i had the chance to show them soldier field. i regret i was not able to take and one of the classics. i will note that my teams did ok. [laughter] now, as i said yesterday, nato has been the bedrock of freedom and prosperity for nearly 65 years. it has not just in doors, it has

thrived. carnations are stronger when we stand to get -- our nations are strong for when we stand together. we saw that most recently in libya. as president, one of might top foreign-policy priorities has been to strengthen our alliances, including nato. that is exactly what we have done. in lisbon, we took action in several areas there are critical to the future of our alliance. we pledged in chicago we would do more. over the last two days, we have delivered. we've reached agreement on a series of steps to strengthen the alliance is defense capabilities over the next decade. in order to fulfil our article 5 commitment to our collective security. we agreed to acquire a fleet of remotely piloted aircrafts to strengthen intelligence,

surveillance, and reconnaissance. we agreed to continue air patrols over our baltic allies. we also agreed on a mix of conventional, non-nuclear missile, and nuclear defense forces that we need. we agreed on how to pay for them. that includes a pooling our resources. we're moving forward with missile defense and agreed that nato is declaring an interim capability for the system. america's contribution will be an adaptive approach we are pursuing on a european missile defense. i want to commend our allies who are stepping up and playing a leadership role in missile defense. ourspain, where many, and poland have agreed to host.

we look for contributions from other allies. i continue to believe that missile defense can be an area of cooperation with russia second, we are now unified behind a plan to wind down the war in afghanistan, a plant that trains security forces, transitions, and build a partnership that can the door after our mission ends. since last year we have transitioned parts of afghanistan to the afghan national security forces, and that it enabled our troops to start coming home. we are in the process of drawing down 33,000 troops by the end of this summer. whip reached agreement on the next milestone index transition. we agreed afghan forces will take the lead for combat operations next year, in the mid 2013.

at that time isaf forces will have shifted to a support role in all parts of the country. this will mark a step toward the goal we agreed to and listen -- in lisbon. afghans will take responsibility for their own country and so our troops can come home. this will not mark the end of afghanistan challenges or our partnership with that country. we are making progress against our core objective of defeating al qaeda and denying a safe haven. we leave chicago with a clear road map. we're committed to this plan to bring the war in afghanistan to a responsible and. we agreed on what nagel's relationship with afghanistan will look like after. nato will continue to train and

support afghan forces as they grow stronger. while this summer but has not been a pledging conference, it is encouraging to see countries making significant commitments to sustain afghanistan's progress in the years ahead. today the community also expressed its strong support for efforts to bring peace and stability to south asia, including afghanistan's nabors. finally made it agreed to deepen its cooperation with partners that have been critical to meetingns, and today's was unprecedented. our allies, joined with 13 nations from around the world, europe, middle east, africa, and asia. each country has contributed the operations in different ways. each wants to see us do more together. to see the breadth of those

countries represented in that room is to see how nato has become truly a hell of a global security. i want to thank all my fellow leaders. the bottom line is that we are leaving chicago with a nato alliance that is stronger, more capable, and more ready for the future. each of our nations, the united states included, is more secure and we are in a stronger position to defend the freedom we have around the world. i will take a couple questions. i will start with jolie. >> said the u.s. cannot deal with afghanistan without talking about pakistan, and there has been little discussion about pakistan's role in ending the war creek in your talks zardari, deep you make any

progress with opening the sidelines? >> keep in mind my discussion with the president was very brief, as we were walking into the sunlight. i emphasized to him what we have emphasized publicly as well as privately. we think pakistan has to be part of the solution in afghanistan. it is in our national interest to see a pakistan that is democratic, prosperous, and stable. we share a common enemy and the extremists that are found not only in afghanistan, but within pakistan, and we need to work through the tensions have arisen after 10 years of our military presence in that region. president zardari said these

issues can be worked through. we did not anticipate the supply line issue would be solves. we're making diligent progress on its. everybody in the alliance, all my staff and most importantly the people of afghanistan and pakistan, understand neither country is but have the kind of security and prosperity it needs unless they can result some of these outstanding issues and joined in a common purpose with the international community to make sure these regions are not harboring extremists. i did not want to paper over challenges. there's no doubt there have been tensions between isaf and pakistan, united states and pakistan, over the last several months. they are being worked through,

both military and diplomatic channels. ultimately, it is in our interest to see a successful, stable pakistan and it is in pakistan's interest to work with us and the world community to ensure they themselves are not consumed by extremism that is in their midst. we will keep on going at this, and every nato member is committed to that. hans? >> thank you, mr. president. mr. de your friend and -- yesterday democrats your friend alleged the romney campaign was responsible for job losses at a kansas city steel mill. is that your view that romney is personally responsible for those jobs lhasa's? -- losses?

can you give us your sense -- three parts, mr. president -- of what private equities' role is in stemming job losses as they seek a return for their investors? >> cory booker is an outstanding mayork, and it is important to recognize this issue is not a distraction. this is part of the debate we will be adding in this campaign about how do we create an economy where everybody from top to bottom, folks on wall street and main street, have a shot at success. if they are working hard and acting responsibly now, my view

of private equity is that it is set up to maximize profits. that is a healthy part of the free market. that is part of the will of a lot of business people. that is not unique to private equity. my representatives have said and i will say today i think there are folks who do good work in that area and there are times when they identify capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries. understand that their priority is to maximize profits. that is not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers. the reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my

opponent, governor romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be president is his business experience. he is not touting his experience in massachusetts. he is saying he is a business guy, and this is his business. when you are president as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, job is not simply to maximize profits. your job is to figure out how everybody in the country as a fair shot. your job is to take about those workers who get laid off and how are we paying for their retraining. workshop is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters. your job is to think about how we set up an equitable tax system so everybody is paying their fair share that allows us to invest in science and

technology and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow. and so, if your main argument for how to grow in the economy is i knew how to make a lot of money for investors, then you are missing what this job is about. that does not mean you are not good at private equity. that is not what my job is as president. my job is to take into account everybody, not just some. my job is to make sure every -- that the country is growing not just now, but 10 and 20 years from now. and so to repeat, this is not a distraction. this is what this campaign is going to be about. what is a strategy for us to move this country forward in a

way where everybody can succeed prove that means i have to think about those workers in that video just as much as i am thinking about folks who have been much more successful. [unintelligible] what i would say is that mr. romney is responsible for the proposals he is putting forward for how he says he is going to fix the economy, and if the main basis for and suggesting he can do a better job is his track record as the head of a private equity firm, then both the upside and downside are worth examining. hold on a second. alistair? >> thank you, mr. president.

i would like to take you back to the summit you posted at camp david. what do you feel you can ensure investors there are contingency plans in place to cope if greece leaves to euro? >> we had an extensive discussion of the situation, and everybody is interested in getting that issue resolved. i will not speculate on what happens if the greek jews to accept, because they have an election at this is going to be an important debate inside of greece. everybody involved in the g-8 summit indicated their desire to see greece stay in the your zone in a way consistent with commitments that have already been made, and is important for greece, a democracy, to work through what there are options

are at a time of great difficulty. we all understand what is at stake. what happens increase as an impact here in united states. businesses are more hesitant to invest if they see a lot of uncertainty blooming across the atlantic, because they are not sure whether that is going to mean a further global slowdown, and we are already seeing very slow growth rates and contraction in countries in europe. we had a discussion about how do we strengthen the european project generally in a way that does not harm world economic growth, but moves it forward. i have been clear and not just this week, but over the last two years about what i think needs to be done. we have to put in place firewalls that in short --

insure countries outside of trees that are doing the right thing are not harmed because markets are skittish and nervous. we have to make sure that banks are recapitalized in europe said that investors have confidence, and we have to make sure there is a growth strategy to go along side the need for a fiscal discipline as well as a monetary policy that is promoting the capacity of countries like spain or italy that have put in place some very tough targets and some very tough policies to also offered their constituents a prospect for the economy improving, job growth increasing, in comes expanding, even if it may take a little bit of time. the good news was you saw a consensus across the board, from newly elected president hollande

to chancellor marker, to other members of the european community, that balanced approach which is needed right now. they are going to be meeting this week to try to advance those discussions further. we have offered to be there for consultation to provide any technical insistence and work through some of these ideas in terms of how we can stabilize the markets there. ultimately, what i think is most important is that europe recognizes this project involves more than just a currency. it means there has got to be more effective coordination on the fiscal and monetary side and on the growth agenda. i think there was strong intent there to move in that direction. they have 17 countries that have

to agree to every step they take. i think about my it won the congress, and then i start thinking about 17 congresses, and i start getting a little bit of a headache. it will be challenging for them. the last point i may, i do sense greater urgency now that perhaps existed two years ago or two 1/2 years ago. keep in mind for books here in we looke's, when backwards patrick at our response in 2008, 2009, there was criticism because we had to make a bunch of tough political season -- decisions. they're still criticism about the decisions we made. one of the things we did was act forcefully to sell a lot of these problems early -- to solve a lot of these problems

early, which is why credit markets started loosening up. that is why businesses started investing again. that is why we have seen job growth of over 4 million jobs over the last two years. that is why corporations are making money, and that is what we have seen strong economic growth for a long time. acting forcefully rather than in small bite sized pieces and increments i think ends up being a better approach even though we are still going through challenges ourselves. some of these issues are ones that had been built up over decades. all right? steven? >> as you try to continue afghanistan from reverting to

its formal role as a terrorist state, terrorists in yemen today massacred soldiers. are you concerned yemen seems to be slipping further into anarchy and what is the united states do to slow that process? >> we are concerned about al qaeda activities and extremist activity in yemen. a positive development has been a relatively peaceful political transition in yemen, and we participated diplomatically along with yemen's nabors in helping to lead to a political transition. the work is not yet done. we have established a strong counter-terrorism partnership with the yemen government, but there is no doubt in a country that is still poor, that is still unstable, it is attracting a lot of folks that

previously might have been any fatah before we put pressure on them there. we will continue to work with the yemeni government to leadership and operations and try to thwart them. that is important for u.s. safety and for the stability of yemen and region. one of the things we have learned from the afghanistan experience is for us to stay focused on the counter terrorism issue, to work with the government, to not overextend ourselves, the corporate smartly in dealing with these issues come out and is not unique to yemen. we have similar problems in somalia, mali, and the sahel,

and so this is part of the reason why not only is made it important but these partnerships were establishing is important because there will be times when these partners have more effective intelligence operations, more diplomatic contact, etc., in some of these parts of the world where the state is a little wobbly and you may see terrorists attempting to infiltrate or set up bases. i will call on jake tappan. jay said you have been talking about troops in afghanistan, and since so much of the summit has been on afghanistan, none of this would be working were it not for the sacrifices they are making. >> thank you. i put out an invitation for troops and their families and i will give you some of them.

mr. president, if this withdrawal proved premature, what plans are and place for an afghanistan that is falling apart or under taliban rule? i will do one more. do you feel that the reporting you received from the pentagon could represents what the on- ground commanders assessed? is there any disconnect between what leaders feel and what the president wants to hear, versus the truth? >> let me take the second question first. one of the things that i and the size whenever i am talking to john allen -- emphasize when i talk to john allen, the joint chiefs, or in the officers in afghanistan, is i can not

afford it whitewash. i cannot afford not getting the very best information in order to make good decisions. i should add by the way that the danger is not that anybody is purposely trying to downplay challenges in afghanistan. a lot of the time is the military culture is we can get it done. they're thinking is how are we going to solve this problem, not, why is this such a disaster? that is why we admire the military so much and love our troops, because they had that candid spirit. we have set up a structure that tries to guard against that, because in my white house, i have four officers who had been in afghanistan who i will send out there as part of the national security team at the white house, not simply the pentagon, to interact and to

listen, and to go in and talk to the captains and majors and corporals and the private spirit this is to try to get a sense of what is going on. the reports we get are relatively accurate and the sense that there is real improvement in those areas where we have had a significant presence. you can see the taliban not having a foothold, that there is genuine improvement in the performance of afghan national security forces, but the taliban is still a robust enemy. and the games are still -- the gains are still fragile. this leads me to the second point, in terms of premature withdrawal. i do not think there will ever be an optimal point where we say this is all done, this is perfect, this is just the way we wanted it, and now we can wrap

up our equipment and go home. there is a process, and sometimes a messy process, just like it was in iraq. we had been there now 10 years. we're not committing to a transition process that takes place next year, but the full transition to an afghan responsibility is almost two years away. the afghan security forces themselves will not ever be prepared if they do not start taking that responsibility. frankly, a large footprint we have in afghanistan over time can be counterproductive. we have been there 10 years, and i think the matter how much good we are doing and how outstanding

our troops and civilians and diplomats are doing on the ground, 10 years in a country that is very different -- that is a strain, not only on our folks, but also on that country, which at a point is got to be very sensitive about its own sovereignty. i think the timetable we have established is a sound one. it is a responsible one. are there risks involved in it? absolutely. can i anticipate over the next two years there are going to be some bad moments along with some good ones absolutely. but i think it is the appropriate strategy whereby we can achieve a stable afghanistan that will not be perfect. we can hold back our troops in a

responsible way. and we can start rebuilding america and making some of the massive investments we have made in afghanistan hear back home, putting people back to work, retraining workers, rebuilding our schools, investing in science and technology, developing our business climate. so there are going to be challenges. the one thing i am never doubtful about is the amazing capacity of our troops and their more route. when i was in bagram, the fact you still have so much determination and stick to it to this and professionalism, up from our trips, but from all the coalition allies, isaf, is a testament to them, and we're very proud of them. since i am in chicago, even at my press secretary told me not to do this, i'm going to call on

a chicagoan. >> good to see you, mr. president. chicago -- that you -- chicago looks at you. there is an undeniable sense of pride. in your view, how did reality match up to a fantasy in welcoming world leaders to undermine your efforts to project the image of chicago you would have liked to have seen? >> i have to tell you, i think chicago performed magnificently. those of us who were in the summit had a great experience. if you talk to leaders from around the world, they loved the city. michelle took this bows down to

the south side where wonderful stuff is being done with early education. they saw the art institute. i was talking to david cameron. he is sticking off doing sightseeing. i encouraged everybody to shop. we want to boost the home town economy. we gave each leader a bean, a small model, to remember, as well as a football from soldier field. many of them did not know what to do with it. [laughter] people have a wonderful time, and i think the chicagoans could not have been more hospitable. i could not have been pro uder. this is part of what nato defense, free speech and freedom of assembly. frankly, to my