without going to congress. bush 43 was on the verge of already iraq, he had had decided to go to iraq in my judgment. he went to congress and there is a huge, full-scale public debate and senators of both political parties were required to declare themselves in the question. the idea that the white house and as to what it wants is not consistent with my reading of large military engagements. in the white house to smart innings on its own? -- smaller things on its own?

sure. thatdent still understand they need a solid base of public support to enter into armed conflict. they are right. >> we are hitting closing time. i want to give you the last thoughts on this question or beyond. >> i thank you for the question. this is important as joint force capabilities. prevent, sdhape, and win. fan ofs no bigger the united states air force and

navy than the united states army. what distinguishes it from the relatively affluent media? technology gives you a greater advantage. you typically have a small number of targets that you can identify and engage and established the domains. what is different is incident a bounded number of targets, on land you have tens of thousands of targets, all of which are trying to be classified as such. you can recognize counter measures that are land-based. there are two ways to

fight the united states military brother. what is important is for us to d joint forcee to jewel war capability. that is what combined arms capability is. our enemies will take action to avoid our strengths. there's never been a silver bullets. there are always countermeasures developed. he talked about some that are developing now. we had on our strength capability. that is under threat by not just traditional countermeasures that increasingly technological. for us to have an effective capability to prevent and when

as the nation, we need a balance joint force. when power is an essential component. we have to consider changing the technology and are operating environments. operating environments. let's not neglect historical insights. >> thanks to brookings. we talked about how many americans do not study warfare and consider these things. what brookings has done to bring this topic to the american people is admirable. it has been a privilege. >> you can see the importance of this topic. the series of big questions are

often tied together from land future into the past and to larger scale questions about to where itategy clashes with the american public . also sitting up here in the front row, we appreciate your for dissipation and the work in the future. please join me in a round of applause. [applause] >> thank you. i really appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] event any watch this

time online at our website. go to www.c-span.org. the hill in a number of resources are reporting chuck hagel plans to reduce the size of the army to its smallest .orse since before world war ii it will also call an entire force of jets to be retired. the army peaked at 570,000 troops. he wants to shrink it and 1940.t the smallest since small to carry out longer-term foreign occupations. that is from the hill today. we will be bringing his statements as they briefed reporters today at 1:00 eastern on c-span2 and we will take your

reaction at facebook.com/c-span. buck mckeon will be talking about military issues today. he will be at the national press club. in washington. we will have live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span .ai john dingell will be retiring at the end of this term. "i'm not going to be carrying out the first. i do not want people to say i stay too long." he's 87 years old. he served in the house for nearly 60 years. he became the longest-serving member last summer. he says his health was good enough to make another run. he told the detroit news he find serving in the house to be up noxious that it has been very

hard because of the bitterness in congress and the streets. that is from the washington post. many of you have arty left her comments for on the face but age about his retirement. steve says thank you for your years of service to our nation. enjoy your retirement. this from jonathan dodge. well past time. this should not be allowed. serving is a duty, not career. house colleagues will reconvene tomorrow following the president parade. right here on c-span. the senate in the meantime will meet at 2:00 today for a reading of george washington's farewell address and debate on several judicial nominations. c-span2 has licensed coverage. has allied senate coverage. >> this puts it at the center

every media policy debate we will have. and do not see the ftc being in the public area. we prevent these kind of deals. i think for most americans a deal like this seems unthinkable . it has gotten this far. it says a lot. for me there is no condition as good enough to let a deal like this go through. >> transactions are frequently used as a way to shape this. there are a lot of conditions that could be placed. low-costeutrality or a offering or a buildout to schools for the president to internet access to 99.9% of america's schools. there are a whole list of things similar to conditions comcast agreed to a little over three years ago. eing seriously

ething uproot som bailout conditions. q.m. the impact of a comcast , time warner cable merge. a look now at the political unrest in the ukraine with nicholas burns and former senior director of russia, ukraine and eurasian affairs. >> "washington journal" continues. host: might get the segment is nicholas burns, a former secretary of state for political affairs and currently a professor of the policy and national politics at harvard kennedy school. thank you for being with us. guest: thank you, good morning. ukraine has issued a warrant for the arrest of the president. explain to us, what is the latest on that situation?

guest: the president disappeared . ? but fled --? vych simply disappeared. he ruled under a bankrupt economy. the big issue here was ukraine had a chance to have a deeper trade and investment relationship with the european union that would have been very positive for them. former president turned that down in order to have a closer relationship with the russian confederation. ukraine is a country that is badly divided between ethnic russians in the east and south part of the country and ethnic ukrainians in the central and western part of the country. no one foresaw such a quick end

to his government. now there is an interim government, that government is being given political support by the european union, by the united states. now it is a question of if they can have free presidential elections in may. the government that has emerged, how stable is the situation in ukraine? guest: it is fairly unstable. you had this standoff between armed protesters in the streets of tf over the last several weeks and months. now that the old government has gone away, there is a real need for this interim government led by the speaker of the parliament to assert authority and literally make the trains run on time, to be able to have internal command and security in the country, to resist any , tort to ethnic russians actually go their own way.

isre is a fear that ukraine so unstable that the country could fracture. the new government in tf run by the parliament has taken a series of measures to provide some stability. let's just hope the country can hold together. it is clearly in the interest of the people of ukraine. host: what do we know about this interim government that has emerged? guest: the government is run by opponents of president -- of the former ukrainian presidents. these are leaders from the western and central parts of the country. they are leaders that would like to take their country in a more european union direction. the european union is the largest economy in the world. they wanted to open up trade and investment relations with

ukraine. i think you will see that begin to happen now. the international monetary fund has also been considering a long -- a loan to ukraine. we will see if ukrainians can negotiate that. some very big decisions this new interim government has to take. it is just temporary. they have said that they for may 25 for presidential elections for the entire country. guest is nicholas burns, a former secretary of state for political affairs, also a professor at harvard kennedy school. if you would like to join our conversation, the number is -- first call this morning comes from new york. mike is on the line for republicans.

thanks. i would like to ask how the u.s. to permit expect to trust its citizens in foreign policy -- scientific evidence proves preplanned explosives brought down the towers on 9/11. guest: i couldn't quite hear that question. host: it was part of an organized effort to have calls about 9/11 and what happened there. do want to ask about united states involvement, what are we seeing from the white house administration? seeing anare articulated view from the white house and they support this new government. they support the change that they want to see. they would like to see ukraine have an independent unified country. -- the to see ukraine as

ukraine work with imf, international monetary fund. the white house is worried about the economy of the ukraine. it has major problems of corruption. economy hasn't been reformed since the end of the cold war. there are a few wealthy business people who control most of the economy. that is the root of many of the problems in the country. i think we will see both the u.s. and the eu to do what we can to encourage ukrainians to root reform the economy, make it into a more market economy. yet butat about russia there has been a lot of talk about the role of russian president vladimir putin what he wants. he is obviously going to be very upset about the events in ukraine because his ally, the former president, just disappeared into the night on

saturday and left power. he has not been heard of again. the party that is pro-russia and ukraine is an absolute disarray. it will be a great concern to the russians. as you know, the russians and ukrainians have had a very the his, cultural, linguistic connections for many hundreds of years. ukraine was the second largest republican -- the public to the soviet union. -- second-largest republic to the soviet union in 1991. there was such a long connection between ukraine and russia that many ukrainians cannot foresee a time when they would not have a very close political and economic ties to ukraine. the worry is president put in to useee an opportunity russian influence to intimidate the new interim government of ukraine. russia supplies ukraine with most of its natural gas, which

powers the economy and powers people's homes. economy in russia is willing to put its own troops into another country's affairs to decide things as it did in georgia, when it invaded georgia in the summer of 2008. president putin is a very cynical, tough minded person. he is likely going to play a very tough game to try to regain russian influence in the ukraine. that may be the source of tensions going forward in the next couple of days and weeks. host: national security advisor susan rice asked about the role of russia can play there. we will get your response. [video clip] >> that would be a great mistake. it is not in the interest of russia, ukraine, or the united states to see the country split. it is in nobody's interest to

see violence return and the situation escalate. there is not an inherent connection between a ukraine that has a long-standing historical ties to russia and a modern ukraine that wants to integrate more closely with europe. it need not be mutually exclusive. host: your take? espoo i agree completely with ambassador -- guest: i agree completely with ambassador rice. she warned president putin against the use of force in ukraine. would bentolerable and outrages. secondly, she made a very good point that a country like ukraine can have a historic and linguistic tie to russia but it has its own political orientation. if ukraine wants to take its country into a closer trade relationship with the european union they ought to be able to do that. the end of the cold war, 20 years ago, one of the great successes at the end of the cold haveere people in europe been dominated by the soviet

empire for four decades and now had a chance to choose. it does look like people of ukraine are choosing a western orientation. one would hope that president putin would respect that. i doubt very much that he will preempt i think you will see every effort made by the russian government to turn the situation back to a closer relationship between the ukraine and russia. let us hope that this not take place for the aforesaid arms. host: our next call comes from portland, oregon. carlos is on the line for democrats. -- karl is on the line for democrats. caller: i am glad to get through. host: go ahead. glad to see your program on cd. many times i have a hard time sleeping and i enjoy watching anything to do with the government. host: do have a question about

the situation in the ukraine? like to knowld what it has to do with anything that relates to america. ost: ambassador burns? guest: the united states has a stake in what happens in the ukraine. the united states had to fight 20th wars twice in the century. we were the vanguard of freedom during the cold war. we stationed some of the american troops in europe and some of the great events of our time was the end of the cold war, the dissolution of the soviet empire and of the warsaw pact. the ukrainians were really left out of that revolution because their economy was not reformed. ofy did not have the rule law that safeguarded their private business or political interest. they were run by pro-russian and

.ometimes procommunist rulers have a people of ukraine chance for a very different future. it is certainly in the interest of the united states to see as president george h w bush said more than 20 years ago, europe should be whole, free, and peace. that is the strategic aim of every american president from president truman all the way to president obama, including presidents reagan president bush, and president clinton. we do have a stake in what happens there. united states is only going to operate through political means. there is no question we questiot use or threaten to use military force to get our way in europe. but we are a great if -- influence, political and economic influence on central european countries. we can help them achieve a better future. if we could do that, that is in the interest of our country.

>> the next caller is from arlington, virginia. is things develop the way i suspect they will develop, things will be far worse than indicated. from theall, bottom-up, not from the top-down, if they decide they decide they have a hard time dissociating with a western ukrainians, and the western ukrainians try to send troops there, i can imagine russians will be helpful to try to settle that. we settle the question about changing borders in europe when we supported independence from soviet. russians -- george started that war.

this is a situation that leads to a more balanced presentation if we're going to avoid the terrible prom over there. >> i would say in response i do not agree with the color that somehow, there was an excuse for insia to invade georgia 2008. no reason to use military force. i would completely disagree with that sentiment. at the beginning of the program, i as i said, there is real concern about the future of the ukraine, that the country might not hold together, because of some of the factors the caller very correctly pointed out. between ethnic russians and ethnic ukrainians, the central part of the country, russian speakers in the east, and the southern part of the country, the russian confederation itself has a long-term lease on the black fee for its fleet.

many ethnic russians will not look kindly on the new interim government or the rule for nationalists. there is, unfortunately, a real possibility of instability or worse, even perhaps in the most extreme case, civil war. be avoided.o no one wants to see the ukraine dismembered. raises the question, what is the right policy for the united states. they set all the right things and are doing the right things. we are looking for international lending institutions. i think the government has done what it can do over the weekend in a very tough situation. >> next up in texas, michael is on the line.

thank you for taking my call. you want to look at the problem critically. you recognize we have a position where we have an external influence. the the external side, geopolitical plane becomes a province. if you want a resolution of the problem -- the united states might have to take a somewhat careful view on careful posture. i think you should take a lead, and the united states government should step in malta -- in more to help financially. the ukraine is susceptible.

in the united states, that is coming in financially. the eu should take more of a political negotiation role. we have to be careful. we have seen this play out in cairo and many other countries during the arab spring. people might decide to pull back. not -- see america does it does not support a democratic government. we have seen it before in the ukraine during the resolution. we had a revolution fall apart. what is the guarantee here?

there are many nuances. the nuances would have been complex and we have to proceed carefully. class i very much agree with the way you characterized the situation. before saturday's departure, and the beginning of the new interim government, there was a good amount of compromise worked out essentially by the european union by the foreign ministers. the united states is content to see them take the lead. thee is no question given political and economic weight in the world, we have a role to play as well. you consider your -- the u.s. and europe were together to support peaceful change, the

rule of law, and free elections in the ukraine. these are major points the u.s. administration made over the weekend. i also agree with the caller that there is a lot of complexity here and we cannot see the situation in just simplistic terms. the fact is the ukraine will futurehave some kind of close relationship with russia. for the last 1000 years, there have been orthodox religious between the ukrainians and russians and the orthodox church. local ties back hundreds of years. there are economic links. these two countries are tied closely together economically. is fromukraine's energy gas pipelines in russia. it is not as if europe and the united states can just hope the ukraine completely detaches itself from russia. for social and political and economic and linguistic reasons, that will not happen. that is why the display -- the

diplomacy has to be carefully done. you see a restraint in the comments from the united states, which is appropriate. united states is not trying to stoke the fires or violence. the u.s. is arguing for peaceful change. that is the writer -- the right and responsible thing for our government to do. host: coming out of moscow, we will get comment out of that out of pennsylvania. are you with us, congressman? thank you for joining us. we have a new headline this morning from "the associated press," --

guest: it is not surprising to hear that commentary from russia. there tried to use their monetary power to have a different regime today than what exists. it is not surprising to see the ukraine as eventually coming as a regional power. regime, it was their best opportunity to accomplish that. now that he is gone, it makes it so much different -- more difficult for the russians to envision how that will happen. with the opposition leaders having taken control of parliament and now the new acting president/prime minister.

it is turning out the wrong way than what vladimir putin wanted and it is clearly heading in the direction of those who want more freedom or liberty or democracy in the ukraine. >> what are your biggest concerns in the region right now jacob -- now? guest: certainly stability. more stable and more long-lasting. life in thehe daily concerns.ertainly he is clearly trying to get out of the country. there has been issuing of a warrant for his arrest. whether he is sound and he is arrested, it remains to be seen.

is it looks like it is starting to settle down, a good thing for everybody. people in the ukraine to put in place the right policies in line with where people want to see their country go. if that happens, hopefully stability results. view, has the united states done enough in this situation? >> i think the united states has done enough in terms of at least trying to support the opposition leadership and support protesters, but also our allies in the european union who are directly involved in the negotiation with the agreement a few days ago. we certainly supported that effort. more a situation where we had to allow the european union countries to really take the lead on this given the fact a lot of the unrest started over the decision not to have ukraine

join the du. certainly think that was a mistake. it was a good thing the nations, with the support of the united states, stepped up to the plate and took this situation seriously and began a negotiation that has led to a very good outcome so far. we have been supportive as a country. members of congress have been on the phones in the past week advocatend trying to for stability and the ceasing of hostilities and at the same time for democratic reforms and civil liberties. we probably just took the right amount of action here with great support of great work. the european union foreign ministers that were involved. class all right. ukrainehe congressional

cochairs, thank you for joining us. ambassador, i want to get your take on that story as well about the fear or the lack thereof of the ukraine government. with: i agree very much what the congressman just said and way -- the way he put things. the russians have been saying for the last 48 hours they do not consider the change of power to be legitimate. but russians had a bankrupt policy in the ukraine. they have been supporting the use of force and have called young protesters in the streets terrorists. that is what russians call them. the russians have been off-base. they are obviously extremely disappointed with what is happened. the problem here is russia will not take this lying down. putin, the real power

in russia, sees the ukraine as inextricably bound up with the future of russia. he would see the departure of ukraine as a western leaning country as a major strategic defeat. we have seen how vicious president putin can be. in 2008.at in georgia so i think we have to unfortunately assume the find a wayll try to to recruit their influence in the ukraine. one could imagine the russians might make a big deal about dissatisfaction among ethnic russians in eastern ukraine who do not want to live in a state where their interests are not as well served as they were under yannick kovacic. gascan imagine putin using exports as leverage to turn the gas supplies off and on as he wishes.

he has done that before. we will hear more from russia's -- from russians. disappointing. they want to tell the ukraine get through a tough time. a professor at harvard kennedy school. next caller comes from california. zach is online for independent. thank you. thank you, ambassador for your time. you mentioned the appropriateness, but i would like to question you about the appropriateness of the polish foreign minister's comments and alarming comments from the prime minister premier.

the polish foreign minister said the army would be after you guys and you will be dead and there will be martial law. it was reported the prime minister essentially said it looks like their country might be splitting. the ukraine. what is turkey's stance in the ukrainian question? thank you. the polish foreign minister, the comments you referred to were comments he made last thursday and friday. before the departure of yan ocovich. it in the press, you have got to act -- recognize this issue or else. there has been a lot of history

since then and a lot of change in the ukraine. you pinpoint in your statement the real concern. the russian government has its sea. in the black the russian government will hold foro that strategic point the russian navy. it is ukrainian territory but has been linked to russia on a long-term basis. you will see mayors and governors in the eastern part of appeal to the russian government to support them against the government in kia. division inethnic the ukraine. important to understand, between ethnic russians and russian language speak or debt speakers in the east. most of the western part of ukraine dominated by ethnic ukrainian speakers. that is a big chasm in the country and a source of division. the russian government will play

on that, i think. if ethnic russians in the east appeal to russia for support, russians will make a big deal of saying their rights need to be respected. in the worst-case, that could be a pretext for russia to intervene militarily in the eastern part of the country. we hope it does not come to that. it is at least a possibility because it is part of the playbook of vladimir putin. why you saw ambassador susan rice won the russian government publicly yesterday when she appeared on "meet the press." she was right to say that. our next caller is from new york. independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. -- how can i think put it. it is their region, let them

take care of it. we have got a lot of problems at home. we have got to get back to taking care of our home country. with the started united states and then go help somebody else. i think it is to -- time to keep our noses out of other peoples business, really. thank you for taking my call. it is just the way i feel about it. there is no question the primary focus of our government has to be on the economy and what happens here. but we live in the world. we live in a highly integrated and globalized world. a lot of our economic success depends on our ability to export . a lot of the ways to protect our country is to have allies around the world. we have a lot of allies in europe. when ambassador rice said we ought to support the transition in the ukraine, when she said russia should not intervene, i think she was speaking on behalf of american national interest. we cannot be isolationists and

we cannot think we should not pay attention to what happens around the world. as i said before, the united states has been dragged into two world wars in europe. in addition to those, we had to of those forefront forces, supporting the soviet union during the cold war. the glory of what has happened in europe over the last 20 years or so is that europe has been peaceful and united, more or less. europe has been democratic. we should want to see ukraine stable and to see change take place peacefully and we should has ao see the ukraine chance to prosper. all of that will help the united states of america. in a world where we can disregard what happens in the rest of the world. staten island, new york, catherine is on the independent line. caller: i just have one question for you. why it is not ok for russia -- cyprus, but it is ok for

? how come it is ok for yugoslavia -- [indiscernible] that.xplain to me thank you. >> thank you for your questions. i would not compare these situations. you know the united states has never supported the division of cyprus. you referred to cyprus. has been divided for more than 40 years now. we have not supported that. we support peace talks that would lead to the unification. states has clearly supported the independence of the country of macedonia and have diplomatic relations with that country and that is the proper thing for us to do. the situation in ukraine is quite different. we recognize the ukraine on december 20 5, 19 91, that was

the day the soviet union split up into 15 parts. we have been a good friend of the ukraine since then. we obviously need to be respectful of the internal affairs of the people of the ukraine, but we can certainly speak up and argue for democracy endthe rule of law and an to the nefarious russian influence that has taken place in the country. there has been a consistency between president george h.w. bush, president clinton, and president george w. bush, now president obama. presidents,of those the strategic that -- the strategy is to see a united and peaceful europe. then for the united states to now support peaceful change is the right thing to do. i support what the press -- with the it ministration has been saying over the last couple of days. we will go down to another

cochair. an ohio democrat. thank you for joining us. thank you very much and thank you for focusing attention on the ukraine. i am curious what you are hearing from constituents on the issue? >> people are in support religious leaders and those seeking peaceful change inside the ukraine. they are asking what they can do. do you believe united states has done enough? is there more you would like to personally see done? guest: the united states should stand with its allies around the world and most importantly with the people of ukraine who are trying to improve their country peacefully and have run into serious challenges in doing so. there will probably be a need to deal with some of

those who have had severe burns as a result of what happened. the area of medical, we may be able to do something immediately. more importantly, to be part of a financing package that will draw the ukraine to a free world and allow her to reach her full potential. most americans do not realize how large the ukraine is geographically. can actually be a borderland. that is what her name means. not just pulling to europe, but toward turkey and russia. withs an enormous nation tremendous unmet potential. i could split -- explain a lot about that. there is probably not time. a financing package that allows to go through her current debt situation because of the absolute corruption of the

current regime, it is very necessary. ukrainian people will work hard. they are highly intelligent. you can tell from the olympics, they are very athletic and talented people. passed a congress resolution a couple of weeks ago in strong support of them and against the corruption of the government. class i want to ask you about the recent comments out of russia. the prime minister says the ukrainian government, the authority is questionable. are you surprised at all? class i am not surprised. there is a historic relationship between russia and the ukraine. is a breadbasket for the world. she is now the third-largest exporter, for example. she is to be part of the soviet union. i traveled there when she was.

basically, and, other republics. the world has changed. the ukraine is now an independent nation. it needs to be treated as such and respected as such. moreace on earth suffered in the 20th century, if you look back, then this borderland nation and some of her sister nations. nations like poland that have now come under help. and for a book written americans interested in the subject, you should read that were 32 50 million people killed in that region. there have been fights about the ukraine, about the assets of the ukraine, about the territory of the ukraine and her people, for generations. it is now time to settle down

as a world together intent on allowing more transparent and open societies, and to focus attention on the ukraine and allow her people to reach their full potential. congresswoman marcy kaptur. thank you for joining us this morning. , iassador nicholas burns want to get to an e-mail we just got in. the person writes -- i do not agree at all with the guests. -- guest: i disagree with the sentiments in that e-mail.

president yannick overage use force. we should have no sympathy for him. this is a complex situation. seismicians are a population. the sentiments in this e-mail are something we have to think about. the united states has to be careful about proposing peaceful change. it will take a long time for the ukraine to move forward any kind basis.sive it will be torn between eastern and western half of the country, based on linguistic and ethnic differences. we do not want to do anything to exacerbate those. of rights and the people it

the east have to be respected and that will be a challenge of governance and leadership by the new government. can a new ukrainian government -- president turned his country toward closer economic integration with europe and try to help the people of eastern ukraine, the russian speaking people, to be part of that and part of one country and not to see the country divide. that will be a great test to be had. >> one more call. bill in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: thank you. i just came back from europe and my cousin has been there and the -- i will telld you something. i am a smart guy, 69 years old. quit playing games.

i am american. i have been here 15 years and i love this country and i think everybody in america and this country has to stick together and fight what you guys do. you are destroying the world and the world hates us. been to 60 countries and every one of them hates us. it is time for the president and do not know and i what her name was from ohio, she does not know what she's is talking about. mind our own business and look at our people in the country suffering. we don't have no streets or roads, nothing. we should be ashamed of ourselves. mind our owntime, business because it will come back and kick us in the ass. host: your response? with: i disagree

everything that gentleman said. we are a great country, the most influential country in the world. america reacts peacefully to support democracy. toan give decisive support people in the ukraine who require that. what our proud of governments, republican and democratic, have done over the last 25 years to support a unified and democratic europe. the thought that we can just stay home and pay no attention to the rest of the world, it does not work in a 21st-century. it will not work economically. our economy is so much integrated with the west of the world. it will not work in terms of protecting the country. look what happened to us on 9/11. ourave to strengthen coalitions around the world and our alliances. we have a nato alliance for the united states, dedicated security of the 26 members of that alliance from europe. i was ambassador to nato on

9/11. all of those countries voted at that time, 18 of them, voted, by consensus, to support the united states against al qaeda. these alliances help us when we need help and we have got to help people when they are in the need. the idea that president obama would support the aspirations of the ukrainian people for freedom and for a better life is very much in them -- the american tradition. we have never been a country that has succeeded by only at what happens on our own continent and trying to be isolationists. it does not work in a 21st-century. chrysler got to leave it there. we are out of time. our guest has been nicholas burns.

her mid-have issued an arrest warrant for the former president. reporting that he should face charges of mass murder a peaceful civilians. other unnamed officials were also being taught as physical flows took swift action to consolidate power transfer in the government. >> if this deal is a k, if it's comcast at the center of the policy debate. it seems unthinkable that we

have gotten this far to being debated. it really says a lot. for me there's really no condition that is good enough to let a deal like this go through. >> transactions are frequently used as a way to shape markets. begin neutrality or a low-cost offering. being a buildout to schools for the connect education initiative. it is 95% of america's goals. there are a whole host of things that are similar to conditions comcast agreed to do a little over three years ago. i can see it being something they would improve but with a lot of conditions. >> the impact of a comcast last time warner cable merger. national association for

business economics conference is happening here in washington all day, bringing together at u.s. and, top economists and analysts. we are carrying this live on c-span throughout the day. one of the speakers earlier was alan greenspan. among another identity talked about was current immigration policy. how it is hurting the economy. here's a part of what he had to say. >> let's go back for just a second. that ild cure a part of taking out the programs and either eliminating them or basically opening up the issue of allowing people who get degrees in the united states and then force them to go home.

area.e a deteriorating staff aremanage to structureex capital with what is coming out of the high schools. we used to be able to do that. best in the-class world. we deteriorated very significantly. it is getting very worse all the time. if we're not going to educate peoples, bring in other that want to become americans. it can use their schools but that is what happened with h-1b were eliminated.

it also has a very significant impact on the psychology of income inequality. h-1b subsidizes the income of everyone in this room if think you and me. if we were to open up, we would be finding ourselves competing with others at our skill level and our income levels would not necessarily go down very much. i bet you they would go down to really make an impact. income inequality is a relative concept. people who are absolutely at the 1925 wouldscale in be getting food stamps today it

is a relative issue. you do not necessarily have to bring up the bottom if you bring the top down. pronged -- many pronged, we hae different types of immigration prongs. what to do with the illegals, which is a very different problem, since half of them are in the workforce. if we require them to leave the country, our economy will fall apart because you have no idea how much structure you built into it. i think we are making a mistake in the immigration area, which in many respects could be the worst thing we could do. >> you can see the former fed chair's entire remarks.

life just now from the national mckeonlub, where buck will address the war in afghanistan among other items. >> on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker, and those of you attending today's event. -- our headable table includes our guest ourker as well as members. journalistic concludesguest speech , we'll have a twice genetic answer. -- we will have a question and answer portion.

fleas stand briefly as your name is pronounced. senior editor, air force magazine. , inside theitor army. reporter, global security newswire. deputy communications director, house armed services committee, and guest of the speaker. reporter, bloomberg news, and a past president of the national press club. wife of chairman mckeon. the buffaloes news, chairman of the speaker committee. speaker, hosthe of the speakers committee, who organized today's event.

director of the house armed services committee, and guest of the speaker. publisher of stars & stripes. united states navy, retired. cq roll call, executive briefing defense, and chair of the national press club's read above the spread -- freedom of the press committee. [applause] congressman buck mckeon is our guest today to talk about the u.s. effort in afghanistan. a recent gallup old says that for the first time in the nearly 15-year-old war, more americans think 2001 invasion was a mistake, and to get -- then think it was the right action. says the duties and

afghanistan are far from complete. he says president obama has not disclosed is true plans for afghanistan, and has turned his focus elsewhere. critical ofbeen president obama possible as commander-in-chief, saying that a president must better communicate with the troops and the public that obama has. has announced he will not seek a 12th term in congress. he cited gridlock on capitol hill. during his 21 years in congress, mckeon has been an advocate for increased spending for the pentagon. at a recent armed services committee meeting, the budget pressures have hamstrung the military. forcing leaders to cut strength, readiness, and capabilities when they can least afford it. please join me in welcoming to the national press club chairman buck mckeon. [applause]

>> thank you very much. thank you for having me, thank you for being here this afternoon. i'm glad to have my wife here with me. she was introduced as my wife, she is also a mother of six, and a grandmother of 30 -- [applause] and a great-grandmother of one. giving me the opportunity to say a few things today that i think need to be said, that i think are very important. years now the united states has been at war in afghanistan. afghanistan because was used as a launchpad for attacks that killed americans.

we have a responsibility for the safety and security of our citizens. we have arisen possibility, and we will not abandon that responsibility of a no matter how tough the fight is. the polls say that the support for afghanistan has dropped below 20%. if you listen to the news you will hear about a hopeless campaign to win the unwinnable. that is if you hear about it is all -- at all. the american people know two things. goingnow that the war is badly, and they know that their neighbors oppose us being there. however, i am sure you have heard it that, just because i know it of it doesn't make it so. pressr polls, nor the paint the full picture.

they never tell the full story. that story is a hopeful one. not blindly so, but hopeful nonetheless. anditionally it is right proper that these stories come from the commander-in-chief. he has talked about afghanistan only a handful of times during his presidency. has time, president obama raised his run for the exits, or pitied our wounded, instead of lauding the compliments of our troops, and the importance of the mission they were given to fight. president of the united states will not give the speech, so i will. u.s. -- worstthe attack since pearl harbor about we invaded afghanistan. the very act of toppling the taliban regime was both strategically and technologically astounding.

in three months time america and her allies not down a regime 7000 miles away in landlocked mountainous terrain. we dropped soldiers into a combat those with a brutal climate, with no support other than by air, and a tough determined enemy fighting on his own turf. linesed them to supply that any logistics officer would call him possible. -- impossible. not only succeeded, they kicked the taliban and down in three months. less than a semester to their college friends back home. and we asked them to do something even harder. make no mistake, an insurgency is the hardest type of war a democracy can fight.

holding a new country study, with insurgents hiding among innocents can take years. it took the british 12 years to put down the continent tests -- communists. the agency and northern ireland took decades to resolve. they are finally nearing the finish line. these fights can be one, but they take time, patience, and treasure. , inall of those things short supply with voters. i will not sugarcoat it. the american people are sick and tired of this war. it is there well, not the enemy cost -- enemy's that will determine afghanistan phosphate -- afghanistan's fate.

not million dollars more out arms, or aircraft carriers. here are the questions we have to ask ourselves. less of a threat to the united states than it was 13 years ago? is in a better place than it was 13 years ago? onamerica safer than it was september 10, 2001. ? ? take a good hard look at those questions, and the answer is a resounding yes. i cannot figure out why the president has not taken credit for these big worries. the games since 2000 and nine are threefold, strategic, diplomatic, and moral. let's talk about strategy for a moment. i think it was the height of foolishness to announce a surge,

me brass ofvery sa the end for the search. military strategy being done by white house staffers then military planners is worthy of a head examination. i think that when our generations sharpest counterinsurgency mind asked for more troops, give him more troops. even though the way that this white house has won this war has been outrageous, with white house staffers telling four-star generals their business, there has been unmistakable progress. that progress has come on the backs of our troops. specialist ty carter woke up one night to find it out was being overrun by 300 enemy fighters. he not only stood his ground, he ran over 300 meters to save a

-- 100 meters to save a wounded soldier. carrieddered him and him back, over a football field, through 300 feet of grenades and bullets. here we think it is a big deal when somebody returns a pig staying -- a pigskin 100 yards for a touchdown when 11 men are trying to tackle him. waseant dakota meyer ambushed on patrol in southern afghanistan. he learned that the americans and soldiers were caught off. marine,d with a fellow and broken the ambush, just the two of them. he knocked down anyone who stood in their way. janice m a n afghanistan or better was walking down the road

with an american intelligence officer, went to tell a band partners -- went to taliban snuck up on them. martin --n and not -- marked him for death, but he survived and was reunited with friend last october as one of america's newest residents. -- is a national disgrace [applause] it is a national disgrace that a edward snowden is a household name and icon are -- ty carter and dakota meyer are not. those men are the muscle and fiber of the strategy that is working. those men did what some would consider impossible.

told andries should be retold over and over again. not just those heroes, but our troops as well. have09, coalition forces lost entire sections of the map to a resurgent taliban. the taliban were back, a deadly enemy that would burn their entire country to the ground if it meant keeping a woman out of school. and came back, but so did our coalition. when the annual summer offensive kicked off in 2012, we were ready for them. they threw everything they had at us, and we stopped them cold. the taliban and were dug into the cities like text. we booted them out. the enemy failed in every guard -- regard to achieve their

military objective drink the last several offensive. shifts the tech talk me that has happened since 2009. the blossoming afghan national ansl.ty forces, or the i had a long talk with the manager at of training the security forces. he told me a story. an american sergeant that was training of afghan counterparts as end up with four rounds into their weapon. the afghan soldiers did not know what four was. they worked down, they were illiterate, they had not had the opportunity that we had to get an education. theation was just one of infinite problems we've based standing up a new army and a new police force. some of our instructors

expressed outright hopelessness that the afghans would survive first contact with the enemy. what a difference a couple of years makes. year we educated 70,000 afghans up to the third grade level. they can carry their schoolbooks, they are happy with the opportunity to get education. nsl has doubled in size. operations,ntional and 98% of special operations nsf -- a and s a al. they are there to be back in that is geographically constrained, and still smarting from the clobbering that our surge forces gave them. during the 2014 wide -- fighting

they made gains, they built on those gains, and they secured those gains. their ebs were taking steps not five years ago. they're holding onto a territory that took a 50 nation coalition to win. they are capable, they can take the fight to our shared enemy, and they are ready for that fight. the taliban can mount attacks, but that is about it. they are not trying to capture well defended target, because they cannot hold them. the afghan security forces have a numerical edge. and does not try to hold onto territories anymore, because the afghans make it hurt when they try. here is what it all means. the biggest uncertainties we face in afghanistan or no longer military. their diplomatic, and they are moral.

thes hard to understate successes of the past several years. 2012 president obama and president karzai signed a strategic harder ship agreement. we declare them a major non-nato ally, and the afghan ratified the agreement with both houses of parliament. in may of 2012, the international community got behind the effort. they pledged to for support afghanistan through 2017. the wider international community declared its support afghanistan with a promise of $16 billion worth of assistance. one of the tougher nut to crack has been afghanistan. it is no secret that they have some shared history. there is no need for

rose-colored glasses here. relations between the u.s., pakistan, and afghanistan are finally starting to get some progress. they have both the knowledge that stabilities of both their entries in symbiotic. problems in one, means problems in the other. relations between the two countries are thawing. that started with president karzai's visit last september. official state is its are well and good, but what i really am watching is the military to military relations. pakistan and afghanistan have gone the role in -- the ball rolling their. their relationship has improved slowly but surely. i'm just as happy to see the same meetings held at lower

levels. we have a long ways to go, but these baby steps have made the way for giant leaps down the road. progress in mind we have a real problem heading our way with the bilateral security agreement. that agreement is the legal framework we need to continue the mission there, until the mission is finished. had madeu that ansl some incredible gains. that is true, but i also told her that this is a force that is only five years old. without our support, and we support includes presence and money, the afghan security forces can execute. the remaining gaps are not unrealistic for a five-year-old force. filling the gaps does not mean that america's sons and

daughters will be stuck on the front lines forever. president karzai has refused to sign the agreement that allows us to provide that support. that is a problem. the afghan people have been amazing allies, resident karzai has not. let's not in our hopes on one man. especially one man who was packing his bags in a few months. the 2500 leaders from all around the country have overwhelmingly supported the bsa. polls show that 70% of afghans want us to stay. not forgotten how quickly we left after the soviet occupation, and how that ended. there is also an election coming up, and most of the presidential candidates support a long-term agreement with the united states. you do not need to look past

baghdad to see how quickly aims can unravel. we went into afghanistan to do a job. like startingot things we do not intend to finish. no matter how hard it may be. locking down that tsa is the last day diplomatic step toward getting that job done permanently. it is vital to keep the coalition going, i am sure the lack of a bsa will be the subject of an intense discussion meetingato ministerial this week. finally, we owe it to ourselves to have a frank discussion about the moral responsibility and afghanistan. cruel,-- taliban are barbaric, and their kind has no place in the 21st century. as we diddon them

before, we paid the price. world., leads the leadership has responsibilities. there are times when the mustratic -- democracies take a look inward. there are times when we must come to terms with the burden of our values. afghanistan is one of those moments. we step back and abandon afghanistan to the wolves? do we still have a moral responsibility to the people there? does our humanity still compel us to help us -- help people of know nothing but war for four decades? the market people are prudent people. they know we have problems here at home. they know we are buried under a mountain of debt. but they are also a compassionate people. we have not just made strategic and diplomatic gains of about

moral gains as well. it is worth asking, is there anything in afghanistan that gives us hope? you are darn right there is. [applause] the improvements in social development made over the past decade have finally even these good people a chance. afghanistan has made the largest percentage gain of any country in the world in basic health and development indicators. year 2000,, in the male life expectancy was 37 years old. today, it is 56. than five percent of afghans have cell phones, now over 60% do. including 48% of the women. just 450there were health facilities in all of afghanistan including hospitals.

now there are more than 1800. only the privileged few had internet a decade ago, today over 65% of the population has access to an internet connection. nearly half -- .5 million of them have facebook accounts. ruled, only ton international airlines dared to fly in. now there are 12 that service most major cities. i visited afghanistan many years ago before the surge really kicked in. inould not go to the city the south of it was a taliban stronghold. i went back after the surge, and the city was in radley hands. the marines had done their job. while we're there we help to open is cool. not a school like our kids get re, but build out

of adobe and tents, with i've hundred excited children -- 500 excited children, about a third of them girls. that is a memory i will hold onto it for the rest of my life. children areion attending school. that is up from one million when we went in. today there are over 13,000 general education schools. the taliban and beliefs always dependent on low education, particularly in the rural areas. the old afghanistan, the one the taliban ruled is crumbling. 2002, there were only 32 miles of paved road, now there 500 miles.7

2001, the voice of sharia was the only news source. now there are 70 tv stations, with most of the population within rod castro range. illiteracy, isolation, and poverty are the chains the taliban uses to bind the people in submission. but afghanistan is starting to break those chains. extraction of oil and precious metals account for 45% of their gdp within a decade. population is gaining access to roads, electricity, and your geisha networks. let's -- what is changing slowly in afghanistan itself. afghans do not want what the taliban is selling. and governance, their heavy hand, their brutal treatment of the afghan people

only quickens their slow arc to the grave. one progress that gives hope this women's rights. they can attest to how things used to be. she was forced to marry at 14. she fled that marriage so the taliban and made an example of her. her nose and ears were cut off. she was left in the mountains to die, but was rescued by the army. today she is a grim reminder of what these men do when they run things. the taliban and through women out of schools and out of work, around one quarter of government employees work within in 1996. that was until the taliban decreed it was immoral for women to work. today they are constitutionally protected, and have seats in parliament.

many presidential appointees are required to be female, and women have crept back up to 20% of the workforce. there are now 40,000 young women attending public and private universities, technical institutes with more and rolling each year. we have had women from our congress, most of them from the armed services to midi that have met withfghanistan and the same women, and seen the progress. thathave seen the stories these women are scared of the taliban coming up as they would be the first was killed. there are still huge cultural challenges here. afghanistan is not going to turn into sweden overnight. when i visited recently, the general made a point to stick with me. issaid his visit -- it

absolutely essential to make the taliban carry the baggage of their history. you cannot bridge the gap between the taliban and the civil society. that civil society is beginning to bear fruit, and the taliban are running out of time. the americans have the clock the mother he has the time -- that he has the time. and now the afghans have the time, and that is why you're seeing a desperate taliban flirting with political settlement. at some point, a decade of opportunity in afghanistan is going to catch up the taliban. blowll catch them, it will right past them, and the taliban will be left in the dost. 0--- dust. there is a moral charge here, and the american people have answered it. we should be proud that we have answered it. i do not want to sound like i am feeding silver linings, especially when they are one warranted -- unwarranted.

there's no question that afghanistan is still a monumental challenge. when i find astounding is that the president will not acknowledge these big areas. i'm astounded he will not give this speech. why on earth will you not take credit for his own strategy, his own success tories -- success stories? timeline praising the end of the iraq war, they take credit for leaving iraq. you can ask iraqis how that has been going for them. contrast, there is nothing special or prominent about what our troops have achieved in afghanistan. what president once referred to as the good war. go to whitehouse

.gov/afghanistan. a notice saying sorry, the page you're looking for is not found. does the white house really think they cannot have -- pretend a war is not happening. of americans thought it was a mistake. just last week, and for the first time ever, gallup found the majority of americans now believe the war was in error. counterinsurgency is have two fronts, the one out there, the one right here. the troops have held their line out there, the president has not held the line here. by letting the public support for the war in road, the president has caused himself political capital that could have been used to solve a number of points. there were even times when the

president openly campaigned against his own strategy. aboutated trial balloons abandoning afghanistan, and sent his political operatives out to so fatigue and hopelessness. our troops have sweat and blood to bring the fight to a finish. so has a multinational coalition , so have the afghan people. some have suffered, some have conquered, some have felt lost, some have felt victory, and some have the incredible odds. it is not much to ask that every once in a while we hear about these accomplishments from our commander in chief. we deserve to hear about the steps forward, we deserve to hear and understand why we fight. i spent 20 years in congress, i understand that politics can affect the judgment. but placing politics above duty is tragic.

it is tragic, and it is unforgivable. the american people and their armed forces deserve better. if the troops fight for the mission abroad, the president better fight for their mission here at home. anything less is a dereliction of duty. this country was built on the backs of great challenges. things we did not want to experience, things we did not want to do. afghanistan is one of those challenges, but let's look at the results. the president has sustained international support for this new democracy. found billions in aid to help lift them out of despair. he kept the coalition of countries willing to send troops to fight with us, and as a direct result of this military strategy, afghanistan is freer, and america is safer. that should be a source of right, of these -- a piece of

president obama's legacy. not some shameful burden never to be spoken of. mr. president, you may have stumbled there. but a safe and secure afghanistan is within our grasp, do not let it slip away. [applause] thank you. >> thank you chairman mckeon. what can congress do to ensure that afghanistan stays secure? legislatively to challenge the president's role-playing -- withdrawal plan? >> those are things that we're working on every year. we pass a nice little defense

authorization act of and we will be addressing those issues i am sure in that bill this year. the secretary of defense going to the nato meeting this week. ofis going with a number troops we would leave behind to continue on the mission of supporting the afghan troops. i think it would have been much better if the president had made the decision, and given that number. i visit with many of our nato allies, they ask me where do we go from here? they have already made commitments, they need to have that number established. can addressress that in our bill, and i think we can continue to apply pressure. we want the same and, we want the same goal, we want the safe,

secure, free afghanistan. --are just whining over fighting over the strategies of how that happens. your speech doesn't advocate or described a clear u.s. mission in afghanistan posed 2014. do you call for a continued counterinsurgency mission, a larger footprint, or a smaller force to do the narrow missions envisioned by president obama? >> the president is the commander in chief, and it is up to him to make the final determination. i have talked to the general, there is a very clear plan, and all he is asking for is sufficient number of u.s. and nato troops to remain behind to support the areas that i mentioned in the speech.

the intel, the logistics, and angst that the afghans are not yet able to do them for -- for themselves. for the next couple of years, to provide those things so that when we leave, we do not do what happened in a rock, and leave the country to falter and have all of the problems that we see coming from them on a daily basis. it is just a matter of a limited number of troops behind to support, and to sustain that effort. i think we have that all outlined, and the general has that, i know yes talk to the president about that. -- he has talked to the president about that. that is what i hope for going forward. >> you went and -- mentioned telling thestaffers generals their business. can you cite some examples that concern you? ,> i said it has been reported or stated, and i am reading a

book that mentions that. [laughter] by secretary gates. >> i guess secretary gates is a good source. briefings, in those but he was. read the book. [laughter] what do you feel the united states learned most about warfare, and about how to employ the might of the u.s. military in the service of national objectives in well over a decade of fighting in afghanistan? >> i have been asked a few times, what have we gotten for our money? we have made tremendous advances in many different ways. we have learned how to fight a --nter urgency fight

counterinsurgency fight. we have made terrific gains in saving our wounded warrior's lives. in wars before this one, many people would have died that are now living. we made great gains in making their lives more full and complete. the country has really rallied around our wounded warriors and their families and loved ones. in many different ways we have in theremendous growth medical field. in intelligence gathering, drones tolity to use keep our people out of harm's way, we have drones in the air, we have them on the ground, we're are able to discover and

disable and dismantle ied's. there are a lot of things that have been very tough for us that we have made great gains in. ied's continue to be a problem around the world. it is a great source for haverists, and what we learned in this time has been very beneficial in helping us around the world. >> you mentioned drones. american reliance on battlefield drones has become highly controversial. what would you say to those who say that the cost in civilian casualties has been so high that the overreliance on drones has harmed u.s. national security by turning civilian populations against us? there is no question there have been civilians killed, but there have been civilian skilled in every war that has ever been fought on this planet.

and i would say probably fewer in this war, all you have to do is look at what is happening in syria, egypt, india, and the ukraine, places were civilians are being killed. of that focuses on one type of drug, there are many drones that are being used. there are small ones that troops can carry that will help them to see over the next hill and no one to expect. -- know what to expect. there are some that help them take the enemy on the next field. we would rather have our enemies die than our troops. anything that helps carry out that mission is something we should be happy that we have. i never want to send our troops into a fair fight, that doesn't make sense.

war, a backer of the iraq do you think that conflict diverted attention away from afghanistan, and gave the taliban the chance to regroup? >> i think it probably did. it is very difficult to fight two wars at the same time. but i think another thing that secretary gates mentions in his book as we probably should not concentrate so much on the negative, but on establishing the fact that we are where we are, and what are we going to do going forward? i think barack was helped to be iraq was felt to be an important mission by the president. we carried out that mission, and i believe that we won the war, and on the -- have not done well with the peace. i am hopeful we do not make the

same mistakes in ending iraqi -- in afghanistan, that we made in iraq. why is it worth even one more u.s. service member dying in afghanistan to stay there, when we are working with the government that at times seems to be our enemy, in fighting an insurgency that almost certainly will not be vanquished on the battlefield? i think i talked about that a little bit in the speech. i think that is the problem. our young people out there need to be told what their mission is, why they are fighting, why they are risking their lives over there. the cause is just. we are doing all afghan with the

government, we're talking about one guy, president karzai. that representrs all of the people the nation strongly want us to be there. karzai has political problems, and vision, goals, whatever. everything -- the tie everything to one man. this is a nation of any people, and we need to concentrate on the good things that we have been able to accomplish there. i do not want to see one person -- i attended three funerals in one week, and i can tell you the stories about each of those young men. thing, theiray one families felt like what they were doing was worthwhile. if they heard some good things from our commander-in-chief, they would feel a little bit

better about the loss of their loved ones then never hearing anything about why we are there, and what we are there for. it is in our interest, in addition to the afghan people, remember that i said at the launchpadt was the attackedey attack us -- us in new york on 9/11. decide --peak, defense secretary hagel is unveiling a budget proposal to shrink the army to the smaller size,002 -- to a smaller and to shrink our attack aircraft program. what do you think of this? >> we had a meeting this morning , and he went over those thanks. -- things. i'm surprised you're here, i thought you would be listening

to his speech. [laughter] i have been talking about these cuts for several years now. there is no secret that if you cut $1 trillion out of the fence you're going to be cutting manpower, programs, and these things that are important. in the last few years we have nged our strategy that has served us well since world war ii. equipped,ould be ready to go, two major contingency that one time. we have cut that back to fight one and hold one. heard the speech that the president gave where we cut our strategy back. --another beachy gave speech he gave we looked to the pacific. cutting the navy back to the small it has been since world war i.

they are much more powerful, but we have not learned how to have a ship in two places at the one -- same time. we go to one that is fast 200, instead00 and of 600, i a question that. what we're trying to do is solve our financial problems on the backs of our military. that cannot be done. if it could be done, it should not be done, but it cannot be done. if we cut the whole military budget, the whole discretionary budget, everything that we vote ,n annually as a congress eliminate all of that, we was no be running -- we would still be running a deficit of $.5 trillion a year. -- the bigoblem animal in the room -- [laughter]

avoiding is the mandatory spending. -- unlessdress that we address that, weirds going to keep digging ourselves further and further in the hole. that is the real problem, and we are trying to solve it on the backs of our military. it cannot be done. what are your priorities for marking up the fiscal year 2015 defense spending bill? >> getting it done by october 1. [laughter] and that isain -- all i am going to be talking about between now and october. i'm really concerned, and i brought that up in the meeting this morning with the big eight. it is incumbent upon us to get

that done. last year we got the defense authorization bill done on the lasted a the senate was in session. it.e would have missed we have passed that will every year for 51 years, and some people think we have to do it for 52 years because we have done for -- done it for 51 years. we have to do it because there are certain authorities in there that help the authority -- the military and the defense contractors do their job. if we had not passed that bill on january 1, the construction of our aircraft carrier that takes five years down in regina to build -- five years, down in virginia, would have come to a stop. it would've ended up costing us more money, and it is not a way to do business. it is very important that we get that bill done. we are on a timeline to get our

build on in the house -- bill done in the house, through committee, and to be floor by june. immediately -- if they could have gone to the floor, we could've had our bill done in july. as it was, they never did. get their bill pass on the floor. they got it done in the senate on the last day of the session. if that happens this year, scenario. the everyone who is wanting for reelection goes home october 1 two campaign, they come back after the election, and then what happens? what happens if the republicans win the senate? what is the incentive to finish anything?

the republicans wanted to push january, and i wanted to know why they couldn't do it in june, july, october, november, december? when you have people coming back with a new congress. that is not the way to do business. the number one priority is to get the bill done. if we do not get it done by the time we leave in october, it will be very difficult to buy and there will be a lot of momentum to say we can do it next year. not everybody understands the consequent as of not getting it done. congresse only bill -- doesn't do anything else anyway. that is the deal would get done every year. we will get that done october 1. >> it has been over a year since the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.

how is your thoughts on well the transition the gone -- has gone for openly gay soldiers and sailors to be able to serve alongside the colleagues? >> i do not really know. something, it is , i do go to the troops not ask questions about it, but maybe i should very maybe i will as we go around with more traveling this year. we have not done the lot of traveling the past few years. we used to do that to visit troops and leaders of nations, and that is something i should probably ask about. the leadership seems to think that it is moving ok. i think in our bill we put that there would be automatic reviews

of this of and reports back to us. i have not seen one of those yet, so i cannot give you a solid answer based on any criteria or favtcts. >> why do you represent -- support representative thornberry as your successor? >> did i write that one? [laughter] that is an easy question. thornberry and i came on with the armed services committee at the same time. in 1992, but i did not get onto the covidien my first term. we came onto the committee at the same time, we sat next to each other for many years now. i've had the opportunity to watch them, visit his victor, see how he relates to the people in his district. i see how he relates to the

other members of the committee. he is very articulate, very smart. he has good leadership skills, very serious. member -- been a member of the intel committee for a long time. i think he would make an outstanding chairman for the house armed services committee, and i strongly support him. i could give you many more reasons, but if you know that facts, you know he competed the last few times, and i only beat him by, well it was close. he is the one that is ready, he is been my vice-chairman now for five years. have i been chairman five years? [laughter]

time flies when you're having fun. we do not train chairman, you just compete for the job, and then you find out you get the job, and you start trying to find out -- you are a congressman coming all the things you're doing in other areas, but you do not know about the budget and how that works, and how you put people on different -- all the things you have to learn when you become chairman, i have mac knowsake sure those things. we have worked closely together on everything we do. he will be ready to transition if he is selected, and i'm confident he will be. i think it would be a seamless transition. not quite like what happened to me. i found out that i was going to be the new ranking member 15

minutes before we had a meeting to prepare for the next day mark of of our bill. it is not going to be that way. thank you. time,are almost out of but before asking the last question we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. i would like to present -- npc mugonal mpc to our guest. we hope you find it useful. i would like to acknowledge his excellency, the afghan ambassador to the united states. your excellency. [applause] thank you for coming today. i would also like to thank the national press club staff, including the journalism

institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. [applause] well-deserved applause. finally, there is a reminder that you can find more information about the national press club, including upcoming legends --luncheons on our website. if you'd like to get a copy of today's program, please check out the program website. we have time for a final question. you're leaving congress at the end of the year. what can be done to make future congresses less mired in gridlock, and more successful in tending to the nation's affairs? thank you. the ambassador is a good friend, grew up in california, he is a good guy. could wave a wand and make congress very responsive.

i think our forbearers, when they fled from kingdoms, and wanted to establish democracy did not want to see another , and any one person have too much power. ,hey did an inspired outstanding job of making it difficult for us to do anything. it has gotten worse the last few years. partisanship has gotten deeper, and more difficult to work together. think that finance reform passed years ago that took -- basically neutered the parties and gave the opportunity for outside groups to raise unlimited funds, and to come in and play in the process has had

a very drastic result. to the point where i was talking to a democrat where he lost the election in the primary , and most members say that they cannot work anymore with the republicans unless they get taken out of the primary. the same has happened on the republican side. it pushes the republicans more to the right, and democrats to the left, and the opportunity for people to have meaningful discussions, and really come together on agreements to make things happen becomes very difficult. i think the fear that most members of congress have is not the other party, but being taken out in a primary. that is very