timeframe. we will not have the opportunity what we would do in and around the apex summit and in and around the bilateral state the state visit is constrained. it's not as long as it normally be. it won't have a state dinner. it will have a luncheon instead. the schedule has been relatively compressed. >> you have a lunch that you're looking forward to this afternoon. >> yes, indeed. >> i'll let you get to that. have thank you all, see you on the trip. thanks for coming. >> next president obama's remarks at today's cabinet meeting and his luncheon with congressional leaders. than republican national chairman chair reince prescribe us and he had gillespie conceding the u.s. senate race.

president obama held his first cabinet meeting since tuesday's elections. he held a meeting a couple of hours before a scheduled gathering of congressional leaders at the white house. the president discussed the new economic numbers which include the addition of more than 200,000 private sector jobs and the unemployment rate dropping to 5.8%. >> well, this morning we learned that in october, businesses added 209,000 new jobs. the unemployment rate fell again. the private sector has added 10.6 million new jobs over the last 56 months. this is the strongest job growth that we have seen since the 1990's. all this is a testament to the hard work and resilience of the american people. they have been steady and strong digging themselves out of the worst economic crisis since the great depression and

what we need now to do is make sure we build on this momentum because we recognize that despite the solid growth, despite the drop in unemployment, there are still a lot of folks out there who are anxious about their futures, who are having trouble making ends meet at the end of the month or seafling for the future college education or being able to make sure that they are able to retire with dignity and respect. and so everything that we do over the next two years is designed and geared towards insuring that folks who work hard in this country are able to get ahead. obviously we had a significant midterm election. as i said at the press conference, my attitude has been and will continue to be that goodness don't necessarily come from just one party and i'm looking forward to seeing the leaders of both democrat and republican caucuses this afternoon. let's have a chance to share

with them both what i think we need to be doing to build on the economic momentum that we already have and make it even stronger, but i'm also going to be interested in listening to them in terms of areas where we think it's possible to work together, whether that is putting people back to work through stronger manufacturing here in the united states and selling more to countries around the world is one of the major topics we're going to be discussing during my asia trip next week, whether it's figuring out how we can build on some modest new investments that we have been making in early childhood education, we know that works and there is strong bipartisan support around the country for some of those investments. let's see if he we can do more. all of these issues are ones in which there is a strong possibility bipartisan cooperation as long as we set politics aside for a moment and focus on the people who actually sent us here. in the meantime, in these

regular meetings that i'm having with my cabinet, i have been emphasizing to them from day one and will reiterate in this meeting the fact that separate and apart from legislative activity, we have the capacity to continually improve how we deliver services to the american people. over of what's happened a quarter to several decades is that people sometimes feel as if the federal government is distant and it's not customer friendly and there is too much bureaucracy and because of the fine work of many of the members of this cabinet, what we have been able to do is start chipping away at some of the old ways of doing business and start substituting new ways of doing business to improve customer service but make sure the people are getting the help they need. we got the chance to welcome

and have a conversation with our new secretary of veterans affairs, bob mcdonald, who is coming from the private sector, but also is coming from west point and an extraordinary legacy of service in our armed forces and what we're already seeing is that bob is able to start skimming down the wait times for people in terms of appointments they need but reducing homelessness for h.u.d. with our secretary donovan and now castro, we decreased homelessness by 30%. a lot isn't by new legislation, it's about us focusing more on these problems and managing them better and continually listening to the american people to see how we can be more helpful. so there are a lot of opportunities for us to do that here today. i think we're going to take an

inventory on the progress that's being made in various departments. we're also going to focus on the fact that between now and the end of the year, there is still immediate work that needs to be done. we have made progress in building the kind of public health infrastructure we need to deal with any eventalities with respect to ebolo, it's a concern domesticcally but most importantly, a concern internationally. those t reports from who have been actively involved in that fight and ron will tell us how the work we need to be doing with congress can help advance and ultimately stamp out this epidemic overseas to make sure the american people are safe. we also have some significant national security issues. we got to make sure that our efforts against isil are

probably funded. that is an opportunity for secretary of defense hagel to brief us on the progress in our campaign against i-silver in iraq -- isil in iraq and our work in syria of the bottom line is that as i have told my white house staff, i have shared in the past with many of my cabinet, we are extraordinarily privileged to be in a position where every single day we can have a positive impact in some way on the lives of the american people. and what i have started out on this journey with joe biden and we traveled around the country, we were constantly reminded of the hard work, the accepts of community, the -- sense of community, the sense of family that exists in every pocket and every corner of this country, the same kinds of values that joe grew up on and i grew up on. and what we want to do is make sure that between now and the

time that the next administration takes over that every single day and every single agency we are constantly finding ways to build on those values and to make sure that we are making this country safer and more prosperous. i know that based on the conversations i have had with this cabinet, there is no lack in thusiasm or energy achieving that goal. all right. hank you very much, everybody. thank you. >> the president also met with congressional leaders from both parties today at the white house and made these brief remarks before the start of the

lunch. >> while i want to thank the leadership of both of the house and the senate for being here for this lunch post-election. as i said the other night, obviously the public has had a good night and i congratulated mitch mcconnell and speaker boehner for running very strong campaigns. as i also said the day after the election, what we have seen now for a number of cycles is that the american people just want to see work done here in washington. i think they're frustrated by the gridlock. they would like to see more cooperation and i think all of us have the responsibility, me in particular, to try to make that happen. and so this gives us a good opportunity to explore where we can make progress on behalf of the people who sent us here. the good news is today we saw another good set of jobs numbers.

we now have had 56 consecutive months of job growth, up more than 10.6 million jobs have been created and the unemployment rate now is down to 5.8%. so business is out there investing, hiring. the economic indicators are going stt right direction. as i travel to asia for the g-20 summit, i'm going to be able to say we have created more jobs here in the united states than every other dvanced country combined and they notice that we're doing something right here, but what we also know is that the american people are still anxious about their futures and that means that what we can do together to ensure that young people can afford college, what we can do together to rebuild our infrastructure so that we're competitive going forward. what we can do together to make sure we have a tax system that is fair and simple and

unleashes the dynamism of the economy. what we can could together to keep the progress we have been making in reducing the deficit while still making the investments we need to grow. those are where i'm interested in hearing and sharing ideas. i am committed to both speaker boehner and leader mcconnell is that i am not going to judge ideas based on whether they're democrat or republican, i'm going to be judging them based on whether or not they work. i'm confident that they want to produce results as well on behalf of the american people. so i appreciate they're graciousness in coming here and i'm very much looking forward to giving them some updates on progress we've been making on issues like ebola and isil. there are some specific work that has to get done the next several weeks before the new congress commences and my hope

is that even as we enter it into a new congress, the previous congress has the opportunity to still make progress on a whole bunch of fronts and i'm confident we can get that done. so thank you, again. appreciate it. you're going to be the first to find out, major, along with everybody else. thank you, everybody. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014 >> the white house has announced that president obama has chosen a prosecutor in new york to be the new attorney general. the white house says the president intends to nominate u.s. attorney loretta lynch to replace eric holder as the head of the justice department. the statement describes her as a strong independent prosecutor. if confirmed, she would be the first black woman to hold the ost.

the chair of the republican national committee is hoping the operations and fundraising that helped the g.o.p. take over congress will continue as they look ahead to 2016 and the presidential elections. he spoke for an hour at the "christian science monitor"s breakfast series in washington, d.c. >> good morning. >> ok, folks, here we go. thanks for coming, i'm dave cook from the monitor, our guest this morning is chairman of the republican national committee. his last visit with the group was in march of this year and we thank him for coming back. our guest has had a lifelong interest in politics, according to a profile jeff wrote for the times, he was the self-appointed campaign manager for ronald reagan's presidential bid at pleasant

prairie elementary school in wisconsin. jeff will have to tell us, yeah, it was -- >> it was true. >> it was a great profile anyway, jeff. he went on to earn his masters degree from the university of wisconsin white water. he worked as a committee staffer in the wisconsin legs la tour before moving to warmer climbs to continue his education earning a law degree from the university of miami. after several clerkship it's, he practiced corporate law, ran unsuccessfully for the wisconsin senate and in 2007 was elected chairman of the wisconsin republican party, the youngest person ever to hold that job. in 2009 he became general counsel of the republican national committee and in january of 2011 became r.n.c. chair. he was re-elected in january of 2013. the chairman and his wife salley have two young children.

thus endeth the biographical part of the program. now the recitation of ground rules. as always, we're on the record here. please no live blogging or tweeting and in short no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway to give us time to actually listen to what the guest says. there is no embargo when the session ends. to help you resist that relentless selfie urge, we will email several pictures of the session to all of the reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, please do the traditional thing and sent me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i'll call on one and all in the time available. one other thing, we strive to operate in a strictly nonpartisan fashion. let me know, we have invited his counterpart at d.n.c. to have breakfast with us and hope she'll accept soon. we ask our guest to make opening comments and move to questions around the table. for that, thanks for doing it, sir. >> thank you, i want to get to

your questions quickly. i just have a few comments to make before we open it up. number one, tuesday's election was a big night. it was a wave election and we didn't squeak by. we won by a large margin and i remember when i was here in march, if you remember that, i said it was going to be a tsunami and obviously some people thought that that was kind of a irresponsible or overly excited type of comment to make, but the wave, we didn't think it was inevitable, as recently as last week, democrats were predicting they would hold the senate. i think we have had a handout going around with some of those quotes for everybody. after tuesday, though, democrats are changing their tune. now they're telling you that the wave was so big that even the best ground game couldn't overcome it. that's not analysis, that's really just a lame excuse.

all of you know it, the reason they're playing up the wave is that they don't want to admit that republicans actually beat them at their own game. number two, if we had not seen -- if we had not been laser focused on turning out low propensity voters in states like iowa and colorado, we would have not been victorious. the ground game mattered. our unprecedented investment in data mattered. i'll admit that the democrats' ground game was bigger and more expensive. ours was smarter, targeted, more efficient and ultimately more effective. we made important gains across demographic groups because we believe that voter engagement works. let's talk about hispanic outreach. look at georgia. david purdue won 42% of the hispanic vote, nathan beal had

47%. the african-american voters, look at john casic in ohio, 26% of the black vote, ace americans, exit polls show that republicans won 49% of the asian vote. in 2012, it was 26%. and when it comes to female voters, a few things, first see how cory gardner handed the attacks from mark use balance. greg abbott in texas beat wendy davis among women voters as well. final people asked me what the takeaway of the election is. i think it's that the republicans were given an opportunity to lead at every level, local, state, and federal. in the senate, we had a decisive win obviously across the board and it was clear that it was a defeat for harry reid's dysfunctional leadership and the barack obama agenda. harry reid's refusal to allow

votes in the senate in order to protect incumbents backfired and actually it insured their defeat. in the senate it was a night of important firsts for the republican party. johnny ernst because the first female combat veteran in the senate and the first woman in congress from iowa. tom cotton will be the youngest member of the senate. shelly moore capital is the first woman elected to the senate from west virginia. tim scott becomes the first african-american elected to both the house and the senate. in the house, we have a majority bigger than most of us have seen in our lifetimes. we're proud to see mea love in utah, will herd in texas 23 and elyse at the panic in new york who will become the youngest woman ever elected to congress. the governors' races across america affirmed the leadership of conservative republicans

across the country and in the bluest of blue states they rejected the democrats. in maryland, in massachusetts, and in illinois, even the president's home state where he campaigned vigorously elected a republican. i think that kind of tells you how big this victory was. it wasn't just a rejection of barack obama and everyone connected to barack obama. it was also the acceptance of conservative republican leadership across the board in these states. republicans now control more state legislative chambers, 69 out of 99 and hold on to more legislative seats than at any point in the history of our nation. not only is that important for putting in place the right policies of the state level, it also means that we're going to have a much deeper bench for future congressional and senate races. ultimately this was all a direct rejection of the obama

agenda, but as you all know, president obama said very clearly and he went out of his way and i think it was also perturbed by the strategy adopted by democrats across the board when he declared continuously that his policies were on the ballot and the voters were in response very clear as well that they want nothing to do with the policies of barack obama and when hillary clinton and bill clinton tried to come in for the last 60 days to be the face of the democratic party, that didn't do anything to move the dial either. these were the president's candidates and they were also the clinton's candidates and they lost. remember the clintons were campaigning hard. they couldn't save their candidates even in blue states. i think in arkansas, tom cotton was declared the winner at about 8:01 by the "associated press."

after wednesday's press conference, i'm not sure that the president got the message. he was dismissive, he was flip and this isn't the first time the president has told us he would be bipartisan, so it's hard to take him at his word when he hasn't followed through before. sure, he said he needs to let john boehner win at a round of golf, but that's not going to be good enough. he is missing the point. he needs to listen to the american people more and work with speaker boehner and senator mcconnell so he can find ways to support republican ideas which are the ideas americans chose in this election. in closing, we won in red states, we won in blue states and we won in purple states and we are going to build on our successes of 2014 so that we can have a successful 2016. there is still going to be an uphill battle. i think we have to be about perfect, but i think we can get

there and we're more prepared today than we have been before as a republican party. >> i'm going to do one or two and go to david jackson, todd, le, jill, david and craig, nick, sam, chuck, john and zeke to start. that should keep us going. you have been very enthusiastic in your description of the election. a number of your fellow epublicans are urging a less trampless view, i wouldn't label this a mandate. haley bar bore should not take this election as some rousing endorsement. charles kraut hammer, you had a great night, but you didn't win it, the democrats lost it. are you still feeling the voters' embrace, how sweeping a mandate do you think you

actually got from the results on tuesday? >> well, i think when the president doubled down and claimed that his policies were on the ballot and actually went on talk radio in georgia and said if you elect michelle nunn, you actually are going to be advancing my agenda and the policies that i have put forth, i mean he about sunk michelle nunn with those comments. if you think about it, michelle nunn was back on a trajectory that brought georgia close to even in the polling. we were seeing it, too. the president came in, articulated his message, wanted the voters of georgia to know that the direction that he was bringing this country could be advanced by electing michelle nunn and that race became a race that everyone was assuming was going to be a runoff to an outright win and it wasn't even close. >> what about the election

being the embrace of the values of conservative government? >> it was. >> this morning you said acceptance. you think it was more than just a judgment of him, embrace of you? >> look at wisconsin. look at that state. , u have a state that accepted maybe perhaps embrace might be a little over the top, but clearly if you look at scott walker, larry hogan, chart wherey baker, what is that? -- charlie baker, what is that? is that an accident? the democrats are lousy everywhere. everywhere on the ground they were no good, they didn't do good in maryland. they are lousy in massachusetts. they didn't have their act together? come on, the fact is everything that was attached to barack obama lost and about every tough governor's race in america where republican

principles, conservative principles on the ballot, republicans won. i would call that a pretty sweeping victory. whether it's a mandate or not, that's a different topic. i happen to think that it's clearly a mandate or it's clearly a message that the american people don't want to follow down the pathway of barack obama and his policies. that's clear. so that's number one. number two, when republican principles are put on the table, republicans won. and by the way, democrats didn't, whoever said that the democrats just lost, look, they put together one of the best ground games that they have put together in a midterm. i know because we were fighting it for the last eight months. if anyone is going to tell you in any interview that the reason the democrats lost is because their ground game stunk, they don't know what they're talking about. the fact is we were just a whole lot better than we have ever been. like i said before, i just want to make one other thing clear.

i'm not, i also haven't lost my mind to think that we don't have a long way to go. like i have said a few times this past week, if you heard me, and i mean this, it's sort of like when my wife has asked me how i'm doing on a project around the house and i tell her, well, i'm about 80% done and i have 80% to go, i mean that's kind of where i see us at in the party. >> let me ask you one other, that is that there seems to be sort of a split, one of the challenges for the party seems to be a split over tactics, the "post" and others have written of efforts by speaker boehner and soon to be majority leader mcconnell to get a series of votes, not obstructionist, but to get things done. senator cruz told the "post" that the first order in the new congress should be hearing on president obama looking at the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has

pervaded this administration. how would you assess the party challenge in keeping a sense of unity going forward in terms of objective? >> well, i mean i think with 54 seats in the senate and i don't know where we're going to get in the house, maybe 247, 8, 9, i'm not sure where it's going to go, but i think unity is pretty achievable with those kinds of numbers. i don't think it's a problem and everyone has a different opinion on what direction the agenda in the senate and the house should go, but ultimately we are going to have two leaders that get along very well. i think if you look back historically, i don't know if you're going to find two leaders that are more cohesive and on the same page than speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell. and what ted cruz said i think is appropriate. the american people in part put

-- in part, not the whole campaign, but the american people i think are sick and tired of the abuse as well. they want answers on the i.r.s. they want answers on benghazi and i think that they deserve to get those answers. so, yeah, i think that there should be a continuation of trying to get answers to the american people and and democracy has to be transparent. i don't think it has been over the last few years. >> '94he republican sweep in didn't bring a republican president. and you've still got a party the way from ted bush.o given those divisions, how to republicans get together and find a presidential candidate who can capture the senate if two years? >> the democrats also go to to senator mansion in west virginia, right? you never know. the every two years'

chatter whether he's going to not.e a republican or we don't have a monopoly on diversity within our party. a good thing, actually. at our, if you look back toination process, we tend so -- i candidates but guess historically, i don't see our party notf coalescing rather quickly around a nominee. do believe and people argue with me about it, and that's okay. it's my opinion. i do believe that having a month proportionality in 2012 created an artificially close election. i think that by reorganizing our taking it process and from a six-month slice-and-dice to about 60 days

is smart. what you'rethat's going to see. we're not going to have a circus.e we're going to have control. >> how many debates? and will all go for that? think they're going to go for it. i this i the penalties -- i are prettyenalties debilitating that are in place. but we're going to have enough take care of as many partners and television astions and cable stations possible. and we're going to contain the process so we don't end up with debates that provide the temptation to candidates to break our rules. >> you mentioned democrats. is there any doubt in your mind be runningg to against hillary clinton? >> i sure as heck hope we're running against hillary clinton. you just saw on tuesday night is about as flat performance that you could

have ever seen from the democrat star.s brightest i mean, if you look at the races across the board that she was playing in, she didn't fare very well. and if your job was to unify the to raise a ton of money and to get a ton of volunteers on the ground, i you, you'd want no other opponent than hillary clinton to run against. >> jeff? wake of 2012, the republican national committee 97-page report. you don't like to call it an autopsy. you called it an opportunity project. do you believe that -- in one of said, we mustit embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. do you believe that still needs to be an imperative of the party forward to 2016? and on the report as a whole, what still needs to be that report orom

should it just be shelved? >> we actually -- if you look at the report -- so let me back up. the report was written after an appointed group of people interviewed and talked to people activists,e country, leaders, you know, thousands of people. and it was written for the republican national committee at my request. that report was not written by me or somebody in our, you know, building. it's a report for the entire republican party to review and i think that by and large it was a great report and we've been least as far as the republican national committee is concerned, follow recommendations, especially when it comes to the mechanics, the ground game, the work that a needs to do in order to be a competent partner, which i don't think in many cases the national party has

been over many years. and i think we're getting there. as to the immigration issue, i clear, youpretty know, comprehensive immigration of become loaded language, because it means to everybodyferent that you ask. rand paul -- if he went to the ofpanic chamber on march 19 2013 -- he went to the chamber we need comprehensive immigration reform. graham said lindsey the same thing. my guess is rand paul's version of what comprehensive reform is might be a little different from lindsey graham. i think ultimately, immigration reform is a subject that most people in our party tackle. need to however, what we've seen happen

over the last several months is president has been using people as political pawns and lying to people when it comes to immigration reform. reformised immigration when he ran for office in 2007. basis to do well voters.ny ultimately, when he had a moorlt and aty in the house supermajority in the senate, he didn't get anything done. he says if only it wasn't for these darn republicans, we would have been able to do it. didn't deliver. he threatened executive a amnes, our mind, a nuclear ofeat, to reject the basis the separation of powers andrine, reject article 1 2, as far as what lies within the power of the president. then he got pushed back on

executive amnesty. and then he came back and said, well, you know what? and obviously his poll numbers were in the tank over the summer. boy, i better not do this to my candidates that are running in all these states that gettingrried about killed in, so i'm going to pull back. then the activists that he's upset.to please get then he says, well, now i'm gonna threaten these guys and do elected.i get >> going forward, do you believe that the republican party needs to follow up on what was the report to have comprehensive immigration reform successful?y to be think so what i -- what i he's done is unified the country and the electorate around one principle, and that's that we need to secure the border. a situation that i think may have not existed episode that has the country in a

place where i don't believe most interested in comprehensive immigration reform unless they're sure that the border is secure. think it was because of the president's haphazard political ane that's created environment that will not allow move forwardre to unless people can be convinced that that border is secure. we've come.here and i think it makes sense that lot of talk about immigration reform and now -- i think rightfully so, we're talking about border security first, before we get to else.ng >> todd gilman? >> thank you. davis inntioned wendy texas. and the democrats made a big about battleground texas. this was really going to be a huge push. by an enormous

average. is texas more republican now this electionfore cycle? away that further democrats threaten to own the white house forever because they texas?er >> i think what's happening is the texas gop, and i would say the republican national threat of took the battleground texas pretty seriously. you look at fec reports, what you're going to see is that the rnc has been investing in texas for about a year and a half on the ground with hispanic engagement operations, regional offices, and i would say that gop itself is one of the best parties in hispanic engagement that there is in this country, along with great like greg abbott.

so i do believe that texas did a lot of work down there in registering and, again, is the think that they woke up party in that if we don't start recruitingntion to volunteers and engaging hispanic it'ss in texas, that possible the party could have a problem in the years to come. you is thatill tell we don't plan on slowing down in in texas.ment i already know what our budget year in to be for next spending on the ground in texas. and it's going to be because we to hold and have get better in texas because while i don't think it's going problem in 2016, if we were to just forget about texas and think everything is going to there, 2020, 2024, i don't want to see us, you know, becoming a close state or

a state that ends up becoming purple. running for another term as rnc chair? have you made up your mind on that? >> i'll probably decide the first week of december. but i'm -- i'm leaning to do it again. >> and just a -- >> but i have to talk to -- that being said now, my wife is going this. i mean, i've got to talk to -- i seriousreally had that conversation at home. [laughter] which is -- yeah. to happen's going tonight. [laughter] i got a text. you know, the thing for me isn't itt i wouldn't want to do again. in ave put ourselves four-year plan. i think we've got a long way to 2016.be ready for so granted we're excited and we've come.re

i think we've got to be about perfect, as a national party, to win a national cultural vote in this country. i think the democrats can be good and win. to be great. in order to do that, you have to have a national party that's obsessed over all the boring stuff like the mechanics and the game. nobody ever wants to talk about these kinds of things. but i'm convinced that this is we're going to win in 2016. i think candidates are really important. but i think the mechanics are more important. the only hesitation i ever have importantthink it's to get back to normal life, with a nine-year-old and a four-year-old, have a backyard, and just simpler operation than is being chairman of the rnc. here?your kids like it >> they do.

they like it. but, you know, it's pretty back andhat when we go they grab the bike and the garage door, they're out around the neighborhood, and i don't know. it's just better, a better life in wisconsin, i would say. >> jill? >> you framed this as a rejection of the president's policies and that's certainly one way of looking at it. curious about how you explain some of the ballot initiatives where some of the policies he's identified with, like raising the minimum wage very well.trol, did does that send any -- what do you take from that in terms of whether republicans should start thinking along lines like that? mean, i think -- yeah. i think these are the issues that our legislators have to decide and they have to how they want to governor in each of these different states with different agendas. some states present unique

differences than one national agenda. and as far as minimum wage and marijuana is concerned, i mean, i personally don't believe that artificially raiding the minimum wage-- raising is minimum is going to put more money in people's pockets, because i think eventually inflation goes up and products cost more. i think it's sort of a false -- a false hope. but as far as marijuana is mean, i'm opposed to that. we needon't think that to be promoting things like that and with high school kids and i just -- i'm not if favor of it. >> for republicans -- havethink the legislators to consider everything. but as chairman of the party, i'm the mechanic. i'm the one that's got to understand and get our act together when it comes to our operation. i'm not the guy that sits down

with scott walker and says, you need to look at this issue regarding minimum wage or marijuana. is what legislators, governors have to do in order to can best how they govern their individual states. if you talk to chris christie, going to govern in a state than,y in his you know, governor haslam is tennessee.vern in i think everything is different. that's the great thing about the united states.he datatwithstanding the operation, in 2016, you're going broader mass, higher turnout. won't necessarily be able to run against somebody with a 40% approval rating. about the -- and you've

talked before about how your it never ends. you keep refining it and trying better.t have you had a chance yet to figure out, with the success itt you had tuesday, where needs to go from here so that 2016, you cano compete theoretically against operation that might be as good as what the president fielded in 2012? know, not completely yet. days.nly been a few but i have an idea. my guess is that we're going to three times bigger in 2014.ere i think it's going to take a money and ant of huge paid program in the states, starting immediately. i will tell you, we're not of any staff out

presidential battleground state. how hard to do, if you know hard, you know, our money cycle works. strip down to bare bones and then build back up. think that we need to have a full-blown field operation in by march, in florida, ohio and virginia. and that's an extremely expensive thing to do when people are tired and tapped out. but i think the nice thing about is thatpened on tuesday our investors at the rnc are mechanicsat the worked and they can see that a good competent program on the ground is something that they're willing to invest in again immediately in 2010. >> okay. just one thing on the 2016 map. to this before. it appears, at least right now, easier map for

democrats, where the swing states, they've got in the bank more electoral votes than you guys do. you guys need certain states florida ornd virginia or some combination of to the solidosed reds, if you look at the count. changes anything that that? or do you really -- is it that you guys?a path for >> well, i mean, if you think about where we were as a party a few years ago, in just being $26 million debt and where we were at with 80 employees. barack obama at the same time had 800 employees. didn't have a whole lot initially to offer. and mitt romney lost by a quarter million votes. so i mean, it wasn't like -- you electoralted the college was pretty lopsided. talking totals, you're about 100,000 or so in florida,

virginia, ohio. neededly we new hampshire. but we're talking about working like dogs here to grow the electorate and turn the dial just a few little notches in order to win. if we work really hard and we've got a -- and we got a ballot that the people actually want to sit down and have a beer with, i think we can win. i will tell you this. if we didn't win purple states on tuesday, it would have been me to sitcult for here and make a case for you we couldn't win a purple state in a good environment with good candidates, it would have been very difficult to tell you that we were going to be able to 75%, 80% turnout. so i get the point. mr. cheney's to question probably would have been a lot different if we colorado andin north carolina. is thatnk the challenge our data and our targeting has

to improve and i think it will. vote think that our early program has to decisively beat the democrats. and if you saw what we were doing, we were targeting low-propensity voters. so we were finding the consumer characteristics of people, what buy and don't buy, how many magazineshave, what they subscribe to, finding out and then taking the information that looked like voters that be our voters, and then matching it up to the voter rolls of people who don't always vote. so finding your high probability republicans but low-propensity voters, targeting them early. and we're just going to have to do an even better job of that in places like in colorado, iowa and north carolina in order to win in 2016.

i'm getting where you're at but that's where i think we need to go. >> we're going to go to your hometown paper. >> ah! >> milwaukee sentinel journal. >> so you have states where the has been kind of dominated at the presidential level but winning midterms. other states where you've been and yetng in midterms still losing presidentials. does -- does what change the size of the challenge, the presidential challenge for you? sounds like you're saying you still have to be perfect to win a presidential campaign. have to behat you perfect? what is the nature of that challenge? and leaving mechanics aside, you're just talking about sort of demographics and preferences. >> for one thing, i don't think we've been showing up enough in asian and black

communities over the last several years, because if you the map, you know, who milwaukee, craig? right? congressman, a democrat state assembly person. who is at the church festival on sunday morning in the hispanic community? the democrats. you can win everywhere have 2.4erm, when you or 2.5 people vote in the wisconsin, in, in the recall, four months later, you have 3.1 million people vote and you feel great about the performance in the midterm. showing if you're not up and working hard in those a year-roundn basis, it comes back in the presidential, and you ultimately have a big problem. so the things that we the rnctally changed at

in black, paid staff hispanic, asian communities on a get,nent basis in order to number 1, get to know voters, voters, tell people about what it is that we believe in as a republican party, open up chapters atblican campuses across the country. are i think important steps in us moving forward as a national party. you're going to see, when you get the actual numbers from the secretary of state's in places like colorado and georgia, you're going to see lot of gainsde a and improvements, because number 1, we're showing up and our case and trying to be better and do better in those communities. >> we've got about 20 minutes to go. your answers have been great. i'm not asking for them to be shorter. let my colleagues know we've got ten people on deck. we're obviously not going to get to all of them.

we'll do the best we can. >> obviously its oo been a been a good week. but what's still your worry as you look ahead to 2016? you think is still the biggest hurdle that you have to climb? to continue what we're doing and raising the scale, dossary to, in what we did in the midterm in i knowsidential, because it's going to take a massive the ground without the helping us raise money to keep doing what we're doing and compete and be prepared when we're going to have a nominee that isn't going no nominee is-- going to have $100 million for a data platform. and no nominee is going to be having a year-round field operation. they're going to be raising money for themselves and making sure they win a primary. and it's going to take the

republican national committee to fill that void. and it's going to be extremely expensive. we have shortnow time. just a quick clarification. you mentioned the nuclear threat. what one does in a nuclear fashion. ofn secondly, yesterday, rob forrnc said he was thankful democrats sidelining the president during election cycle. you share that viewpoint. and if you wanted to run an what then democratic -- [inaudible] >> i don't think anyone is in a now,ion to know right without extensive field work, polling, postelection, real scientific work and interviews. but anecdotally, i've heard from

that have stopped me and told me that they were the democrats sidelined the president during the election. person to know. but i would just say this. i have not heard anything that disputes that narrative among people that i've talked to and from anecdotally. for's the best i can do you. >> how do you feel he was sidelined? >> i don't think so, only because the president made it so that he was on the ballot or at least his policies were on it really didn't matter. i would suppose that if the coming into these

states that were in play more, i probably democrats would have done worse. there may have been a couple of in norths, maybe carolina. but it's hard to tell. i just don't know. sometimes you just don't know. >> on the nuclear threat, i goes forward with his executive -- >> i think that the republicans about whatever possible options we have to stop it. i mean, whether it be court, it be legislation. and i think those options have to be explored. we problem we have is that really can't believe anything the president says on immigration. get asked these hypotheticals. and i know you guys are doing a it. job of but when you're sitting here like me or someone else and the 100thring for time that the president is going to sign an executive amnesty bill, i mean, i guess we just

don't buy it. think he's said so many different things about this that it's hard to know what to and therefore i think it goes in one ear and out the heer at this point, when makes these threats. but if the president does that, whatike essentially he's telling the american people is he doesn't republicansabout and democrats working together, you know. the rather just stick it to republicans as much as he can and the heck with getting along working together in washington. so all the talk about how -- and andree that people are sick tired of washington and dysfunction. president is just throwing a ifrel of kerosene on a fire he signs an executive amnesty order. >> chuck of the st. louis dispatch. >> thank you. as you know, the senate map in not as nearly as

favorable to you. a number of senators in states that are either purple or blue, some of which won narrowly last time out. i'm wondering, for instance, in the case of somebody like kirk in illinois, who favors parts of the herk healthe if the headlines early in the next congress are confrontation and partisan votes potential vetoes and overrides and that sort of thing, how much does that state,r him in a blue and are you concerned about it? how fragile is your senate majority? >> well, i think it's a state-by-state analysis. you look at my state of wisconsin -- and, you know, it's individual. ron johnson is going to be up for reelection in 2016. mark kirk. really important that -- and i have complete mcconnell and

speaker boehner in making sure we lay out a very clear plan, whether it be two or three that we believe in as a party, that are achievable a majority of americans agree with, that is that we repeatnd and repeat and repeat to the american people those achievable are accomplished so that, as you say, people can see that what they invested in and voted for in a republican majority resulted in progress. in washington, d.c. agree with you that if all we get out of this is a bickering,ghting and then i would agree with you that that's not a good result. i think that achievable goals, agenda, is where we're heading. and i think you can hear it and mcconnell's comments

and boehner's comments, kevin mccarter has been out front on this, very clearly. think they're going to be doing a whole lot of talking over the next >> health fragile is that majority? how fragile is that majority? i don't know. it is hard to tell. things change quickly in politics. knowing what will happen in two years is impossible. >> you touched on kohl's a lot this morning. thatal people have said polls in this election were way off.

thissilver not talked on -- talked on this. do you have any thoughts on why polls were off? >> not as a whole. if you take polling or averages, whether it be the public polling and the averages, we see every single poll in our war room. if i looked at single polls and i was talking to people about what i thought was going to happen i generally had an idea , because i would review every single poll and have an idea that tom cotton has been ahead in nine out of 10 polls that i've seen in arkansas between 4%

and 6%. he ended up winning by a lot more than that but i think the public polling pointed to exactly what ended up happening on tuesday. we were far more confident than a lot of the media was over the weekend. they wondered where the republican wave was. we knew through our data operation and modeling that we were going to have a huge night on tuesday. you may have seen some articles written from reporters that had a review of what we were doing before hand, showing people what we think was going to happen in this state. we were almost exact. , we havecarolina better information and what you get from creek as it -- quick

exit polling and things like that. you take that universe and you apply the consumer data and the census data and the voter data to that universe and we set various models. we had a make a scenario and a worst-case scenario and we ended up between mid-case and worst-case in north carolina. we knew that in order to get to the worst-case scenario, it would have been a tiny loss, we would've had to get crushed in 25% to gety 75% to to that worst-case scenario. poll inthe marquette wisconsin. it was about dead on accurate?

i guess i have a view that as a it isi think all of collectively helpful to predicting the outcomes. it is hard to tell what happened in virginia. i am not sure what science they are applying to these polls or who is doing them. i'm not sure why the public polling was there. >> we were not shocked that it was close. >> a follow-up question, do you think that mr. gillespie should ask for a recount? >> i don't know it's up to him. i don't know where the numbers would be right now. i don't know what the latest is there. we are prepared for whatever we can do to help him and he knows that.

he will probably make a decision today. you said before that the republican party needs to be as close to perfect as possible. you said that candidate recruitment was an important factor of the rnc. keep the republican -- y perfect >> you are guaranteed to have a divisive primary with ideologically diverse factions. how do you plan to keep it civil? and do you plan to tip the scales a little bit? to keep them out of debates if they are low in the polls. trite to make it a more perfect process.

the first part of that question, i will tell you that people that invest in the rnc are buying what we are doing and what we are selling. as you saw, in our fundraising over the last couple of years, we have been able to out raise the dnc. million to $2018 million or more. understand donors that what we're doing on the ground matters. it works. what you will see is that the people who have been funding the rnc will double down on our program because they know that investing in mechanics is the way that we are going to be able to win in 2016. that is the first piece. the second piece is that i understand while i can't always control everybody's mouth, i can have an influence over how long

we fight each other. why we are providing and working on a reasonable number of debates that allow candidates to make their case. but not so many that it creates an unnecessary amount of fighting and bickering and unproductive activity. and the primary process is going to start somewhere after february 1. i don't see much of a chance of having an avalanche upfront based on the penalties that states would suffer from competing outside the window. and i think the winner take all contest on march 15 is going to be a pretty massive day. in will have a big primary march, which will be proportional. even bigger have an march 15 that will be a winner take all.

of -- even between now and february, that's a long time. june intend to police that up as well? first amendment, people can say and do what they want. feelingthat there is a and many ofassroots our donors that are not going to put up with republicans slicing each other apart. will be a high level of disdain for candidates who spend their time trying to destroy other republicans.

i think that there is a high level of interest among various people in our party to employ reagan's 11th commandment. verynk you will see people vocal about that moving forward, and less concerned about getting involved in the middle of candidates. be less concerned about my own reputation in refraining from being vocal with candidates that go out of their way to simply just kill each other. >> we have two or three minutes left and i apologize. >> >> you said that the ideal candidate for 2016 would be somebody people would want to have a beer with. could you elaborate on what you

think the best qualities would be for an ideal republican candidate? >> i will probably refrain from that. -- i think midterm elections are judgments on the past as far as performance and i think presidential elections are about the future. i think hope for tomorrow and who is going to provide a better future for our kids is the candidate that wins. it is not necessarily the candidate that can better articulate how we will combat fair trade with china or what we will do about clean coal and fracking. it's about who is going to provide a better country for our

kids, because people want to be hopeful. people want tomorrow to be better than today. people want to believe someone is going to provide a better future for them and their kids. , andnk hope, the future who can best articulate those big themes is the type of candidate that will be able to win the white house in 2016. >> thank you. >> thank you everybody. i appreciate it.

[inaudible]

>> in the virginia u.s. senate race, ed gillespie has conceded the u.s. senate race to democratic incumbent mark warner, and says he will not seek a recount even though state law entitles him to one. the latest numbers from the virginia state board of warnerns shows senator leading by nearly a percentage point after more than 2 million ballots cast. this is 15 minutes. [laughter] [applause] [laughter]

>> thank you all. thank you. thank you so much. thank you all. thank you. thank you all so much. thank you all. what a great crowd on short notice. it is so great to see so many friends and so many volunteers and supporters making time on a weekday. kathy and i are happy to be with you today. we just wanted to give you a little update on where things stand, and it stands this way. as you know, the canvassing is just about completed. and, the official tally is now a gap of more than 16,700 votes, larger than it was on election night. obviously, it did not move in the direction we hoped it would.

i have called mark warner this morning to congratulate him on his reelection, to thank him for his public service to our commonwealth, and to wish him and his family well. it was a nice conversation, and i hope he does well in his continued service for the commonwealth of virginia and the country. this is obviously a hard-fought race, and i am proud of the campaign we have run, and i loved every minute of it. [applause] well, maybe not this one so much. [laughter] we ran an issue-driven, policy,

focused campaign, the specific proposals to create jobs, raise take-home pay, lift people out of poverty, hold down health care costs, and reduce energy prices. we began this race 29 points down. we were outspent by more than two to one, and in the end, the shift of 9000 votes could have changed the outcome of this election. and if i believed there were any conceivable way to find a viable path to win through a recount, i would fight as hard now as i have for the last 10 months of this campaign for our policies and principles. i ran because i love our country and our commonwealth, and it would be wrong to put my fellow virginians through a recount, when in my head and in my heart i know that changing the outcome is not possible. he had heard from supporters and voters with concerns about some irregularities, concerns about their ballots. we forwarded them to the republican party of virginia to

follow up and make sure every legitimate vote is counted, and that we protect against any such irregularities in the future. even factoring in any of these votes being counted, and after careful analysis of past elections in the commonwealth which have been even closer than ours, and in consultation with our legal team, i have concluded the numbers just are not there, and it is time to accept the decision of my fellow virginians. after 11 months and 56,000 miles traveled, kathy and i are blessed to call so many of them are friends. we could not have come this close without the efforts and hours of the mighty, mighty gforce. [applause]

kathy and i love you all, and we surprised a lot of experts tuesday night. but you were not surprised at all. [applause] you had faith all along, and kept working hard even in the face of being told it was hopeless. i want to thank all of our volunteers who were here from the beginning. but i am just as grateful for all of those volunteers who supported others in our nominating process and came on board after our convention. many of them were tea party voters who were initially skeptical of my candidacy. but after getting to know one another better, it was clear their concerns are my concerns and my concerns are there is. -- their concerns. these patriotic americans are often wrongfully marginalized, if not demonized, in the media, and it is wrong. i hope our campaign helps foster an even greater working relationship between traditional

liberty movement and tea party republicans going forward, and our party continues to rally behind our nominees, no matter what door they have come into the process through. we could not have gotten this close in this election if we did not take a positive message to voters who have not traditionally supported republicans, campaigning in every corner of the commonwealth to every segment of the electorate. our campaign information was translated into seven languages, and we went to places republicans too long have written off and democrats too long have taken for granted. we went to ethnic festivals, black churches, college campuses, islamic centers, homeless shelters, food banks, and the recovery community. and, after getting to know one another better, it was clear that their concerns are my concerns and my concerns are there concerns. and those efforts paid off.

as a party, we need to carry them forward. i am going to begin rolling credits, so be patient, because we have a lot of people to thank in this process. i am so happy to congratulate my longtime friend, barbara comstock, for winning in the 10th congressional district. [applause] and in the seventh district, a new friend i made in the course of this campaign, dave bradford, who will do a great job representing the people of the seventh. [applause] they will be effective leaders for the people that elected them for our commonwealth. i want to congratulate another longtime friend, suzanne shelti, and another new friend, mike edwards, running such impressive races in the eighth and 11th districts as well. [applause]

virginia has one of the finest congressional delegations in the united states congress, and it was a joy, a pure joy, to run with rob whitman, rachel, forbes, bob, and morgan griffith. they are all strong voices for us in the united states congress. former congressman eric cantor and retiring congressman frank wolf were generous in their support of our efforts as well, and i want to thank them not only for their support of our campaign, but their service to our country. are general assembly members i want to thank tommy , normand and all our delegates and senators for their invaluable help along the way. i have so many friends and great surrogates and advisers. mark and suzanne were tireless. we decided early on not to have a campaign chairman for this campaign, but mark pretty much served as our campaign chairman. a lot of campaigns have one. they tend to have a title, but not do a lot of work.

mark is the exact opposite. he did not need or want a title, and worked tirelessly on our behalf, and gave us great advice. i am lucky to call him my friend. our party is stronger because of his principled leadership, and virginians are fortunate to have of his intellect and integrity in the state senate. [applause] i think he snyder and the pagan rig -- pig rig for the miles they logged and their friendship. we are so happy for them as they expect their new baby. the finance team did a great job. steve smith. i think pat mullins and the staff at the republican party of virginia, who were shoulder to shoulder with us throughout

this. pat will be missed as he steps down as chairman of the republican party of virginia. i appreciate his service to our party. and i want to thank the rnc and their victory staff, led by josh daniels. the tip of the spear was the ad for senate campaign. the tip of that tip was our campaign manager, chris leavitt, who is tireless, smart, committed, and unrelenting. chris, thank you. [applause] our political team was the backbone of our highly effective ground game. the field director and regional directors were fantastic. we did a lot of outreach, as i mentioned. our coalitions team was wonderful. they helped us make so many new friends and go places we had not been before as a party. i want to thank our coalition directors for their hard work.

we were a policy-driven campaign. and i appreciate the hard work of policy director brian robinson, brendan paddy, and others, for a positive agenda, the ed gillespie agenda for economic growth, which resonated across our commonwealth. we raised a lot of money for a campaign that nobody thought had a chance. our finance team, led by elise and including rob nelson and caitlin collins, did a fantastic job. i appreciate the hard work of our communications team, including tucker martin, paul logan, garrett hawkins, and miriam roth, and social media director eric wilson, who helped us build a community of support. my friend phil cox found the time even though he was in the

midst of a slew of governors races around the country. last but not least, i have to thank my right hand man, kyle. we traveled 56,000 miles together and did not kill one another. [laughter] we went whatever the campaign sent us. by the end of it all, sometimes we were not sure. who made us more mad, the warner campaign headquarters or our own? kyle, thank you very much. [applause] [laughter] and finally, i thank my family. kathy was my most effective surrogate on the campaign trail. we are blessed by a wonderful marriage, and i am a very lucky man. [applause] she is with ed, as you can see,

and i am with her. john, kerry, molly were supportive and understanding throughout this campaign, knowing it was going to take me away from our very close family at times. losing is never easy, but it is made easier by knowing they are there for me and i will have more time to be there for them. it would have been nice to be called senator, but the best thing i have ever been called is dad. [applause] and so, in fact, kathy and i are leaving from here for parents weekend at our daughter's college. let me conclude by saying, thank you. and molly, dad and mom are on the way. god bless you. god bless the commonwealth of

virginia, and god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] pentagon gone briefing on the president's authorization to send 1500 more troops to iraq. at the futurelook of the democratic and republican parties. on the next washington journal, we look at the impact of campaign spinning on the midterms. how some ballot measures to legalize marijuana fared at the falls. we will take your calls. you can join the conversation at

facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on the c-span networks. on saturday night at a to clock, a debate on the future of the internet. tavis smiley., on the ideas of racial progress in america. sunday night at 10:00, edward o wilson on what makes us human and different to other species. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at eta clock, -- social president the fall of the berlin wall -- the 25th anniversary. let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at the following number.

e-mail us at the following address. send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation pit like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> president obama is authorizing the military to iraq as part of the nation's effort to combat isis. the president is asking congress to fund the fight. he is saying that chris will not serve in a combat role. the announcement is part of a $5.6 billion funding request to congress and came after president obama's meeting with congressional leaders. this is 50 minutes. >> good afternoon everybody. happy friday. i know you have all seen my statement on the additional

assistgoing to iraq to missions. i am happy to take further questions on that. i'm not going to reread my statement, but but there is some information i would like to put out this afternoon as well and i'm sure we will dive into whatever's on your mind. first, the department of defense issued supplemental civilian guidancemedical care for those deployed in ebola outbreak areas. those that become ill, contract diseases, or are injured are authorized to receive medical care at a military treatment facility at no cost to the civilian employee. additionally, those treated in theater will be eligible for care in a military treatment facility or civilian medical facility at no cost to the employee. second, as directed by secretary hegel, the chairman issued guidance today for the

information -- implementation of a 21 day control monitoring. this is the guidance we asked the chiefs to come back and put into place while we continue to assess the efficacy of this controlled monitoring. this policy applies to all military services that are contributing personnel to the fight against ebola at its source. in addition to providing guidance for how controlled monitoring will occur, policy states which installations of been approved as control monitoring sites. they are fort bliss, el paso, texas. joint base langley in virginia. fort hood in killeen, texas. fort bragg in north carolina. and overseas, the u.s. army garrison in germany and the u.s. army garrison in italy. selection and criteria capable of treating ebola and conduct

-- the ability to conduct twice daily temperature checks and medical screenings. general hasst, a identified personnel be identified and trained to provide backup capability to the existing medical support team. this request is currently being source. i want to stress that this is not being driven by anticipation of additional need but an effort to establish an additional cadre of personnel that will begin in -- will be given the same specialized treatment as the first group we trained last month. training that focuses on helping them train medical professionals. this additional group will begin their training in san antonio around november 17. with that, we will take

questions. >> it would be helpful if you had a brief statement on what you announced today and what the pentagon has decided to do with regard to these troops and why. >> sure. >> the commander-in-chief has authorized chuck hagel to employ deploy to iraq up to 1500 additional u.s. personnel in a noncombat role to expand and initiate a comprehensive training effort for iraqi forces. secretary hegel made this recommendation to the president based on the request of the government of iraq, the assessment of iraqi units, the progress they have made in the field, and in concert with the coalition campaign plan to defend key areas and go on the offensive against isil. u.s. central command will establish advise and assist operation centers. to provide support at the

brigade headquarters. these centers will be supported by an appropriate array of force protection capabilities. they will establish sites across iraq that will accommodate the training of 12 iraqi brigades. specifically, nine iraqi army and three peshmerga brigades. these will be located in northern, western, and southern iraq. coalition partners will join u.s. personnel to help build iraqi capacity and capabilities. the training will be funded through a request that the administration will submit to congress as well. over the coming weeks, as we finalize the locations the , united states will work with coalition members to determine how many personnel will be required. ultimately, these iraqi forces, when fully trained, will allow them to better protect its citizens, borders, and interests against the threat of isil and is in keeping with the mission to assist the forces as they

improve their capability against isil. >> thank you. it is helpful. last week, general dempsey said -- he hinted at this need and said the precondition for that is that the government in iraq is willing to arm the tribes. do you have assurances that the government of iraq is going to work closely with the sunni tribes and arm them? is part of this plan to arm them yourselves, pay them, or do anything akin to the awakening? the department has requested funding to provide training to tribes operating under the auspices of the iraqi ministry of defense. we expect we will be able to conduct some of that training. the same locations where we will

train the iraq he army and that america. -- peshmerga. it has made it very clear that he intends to outreach. while i can't put a fine point on what that cooperation will look like, there will be a role for city tribes. us when theell iraqi government made the request for this additional deployment? >> i don't have an exact time or date. this is something that has been in discussion for several weeks. >> has secretary hegel committed to staying for the final years of the administration? >> the secretary is fully committed to his job as defense secretary and leading this department. he looks for to doing that for the remainder.

>> will it be different than 10 years ago? >> they did not all run away. we did spend a lot of money and effort training the iraqi army. when we left in 2011, we left them capable and confident in the threat that they faced. that opportunity they were given, the skills they were provided, the leadership they had were squandered by the maliki government over the last three and a half years. they were not properly lead, they were not properly resourced and they were not kept properly trained. that and a lack of will, both political and military at the top led to their disillusionment in the face of isil early in the summer. we still have four or five divisions. i think it was a surprise that they folded as quickly as they

did but not every division turn and ran. as we speak today, they are very much on the go after isil to include anbar province. they are making gains. it is slow. it is not steady every day. they are fighting back. it's a completely different situation. first, we are going in at the request of the iraqi government. we were not wanted to stay there after 2011. there is a very acute threat facing the government and the security forces, a threat they are trying to grapple with right now. they have acknowledged they need a little bit of help. it is a completely different situation. we are confident that if we get the funding we are requesting from congress, we will be able to make significant progress. one of the reasons why we think this is a good idea is because the iraqi security forces have stiffened their spine and have

gone on the offense. they have shown that they have good capabilities but there are gaps in some of the capabilities. that is what we will provide. >> are you asking any other country to join in this fight? >> that's a great question and i meant to say that in my answer to you. there are several other coalition partner nations that have agreed to contribute to the train, advise, and assist mission. within the last 30 minutes, the secretary wrapped up a meeting with his counterpart from denmark. the danes have agreed to provide 120 trainers to this effort. and there are other nations that likewise said they would contribute. yes, there will be coalition members joining us in this effort. we know that for a fact. the list will continue to grow. the united states is not going to be responsible for funding this entire effort.

there'll be contributions for -- from the coalition members. not just people but dollars as well. >> have any of the iraqi brigades selected previously received u.s. training or equipment? >> prior to 2011? i don't know, spence. iraqi brigades have not been selected yet and will be in consultation with the government in iraq to determine that. i could not tell you right now. we just don't know what brigades we are going to train. >> what went behind the specific numbers, up to 1500 new troops? >> sure. expeditionarytwo sites, and additional.

i don't want to get into exec locations. provincebe in and bar -- and bar province. another probably in the baghdad province. those are not necessarily training missions. those are advisory missions. like what we are doing now, the same function. in addition to that, there will be several sites and i can't give you an exact number but somewhere around four or five. building the partner capacity sites. these will be more hands-on training. and the sites are still being surveyed. in those locations, it's much more hands-on training. 1500, less than half of them will be dedicated to the advise and assist mission. so, it'sumber, 630 or

important to remember a good chunk of that will be enabled for the advisors. logistics, command-and-control, intelligence support for them. not all of the 630 or so will be technically advising. there will be some support. the remainder of the number, 70, theyd and 70 -- will be dedicated to this building partner capacity mission. i want to add that right now, in terms of contributions we know we are going to secure well over 700 additional trainers will come from foreign governments. does that answer your question? it's broken down by less than half the number to advise and assist, the rest of the number dedicated to this building partnership capacity. upis there a reason why it's to 1500, not 5000?

>> you have to look at infrastructure, facilities, the ability to actually house people. you have to look at the throughput. you want to get the 12 brigades trained. there will be a mixing capabilities among those. this is based on best estimates about how many people we need to train, how many sites we need and what the quality of the sites are. >> why is this happening now and can you assure people it has nothing to do with the political calendar and the election on tuesday? >> it is being done now, quite frankly, because iraq has reached -- they have demonstrated the willingness and the skill to go after isil. they have reached a point where they need additional help and guidance. that is one of the reasons why

the advising mission will take place in anbar. they have reached a certain point. it is at the request of the government in iraq. what drove this was the prime minister saying i need this extra help and i want this extra help, and i welcome this help inside my country. that's what drove this. and general austin's assessment that this would be beneficial to the overarching goals inside iraq. -- s not >> there was no political angle to the timing here. it was really driven by the request from iraq and the general's assessment about this being the right thing to do and i would at that that was an assessment supported by chairman dempsey and the secretary that formally made this recommendation to the president. that it was not only the right thing to do but the right time to do it based on where we are in the campaign. you don't have to go very far

back in time, chairman dempsey alluded to this in a press conference right here in this room a couple weeks ago. this was something that had been brewing for several weeks. >> when exactly did the secretary make the recommendations to the president? >> i could not give you an exact day. this recommendation i think went over this week but i could not give you the exact day. i don't know if it was precisely before tuesday. it was earlier this week. i know that. >> what is the requirement for iraq at this moment? are there going to be new people going to the country? >> these are additional. we have 1400 or so in iraq right now. this would be additional up to 1500. it doesn't mean we will get to 1500, but the authorization is

up to 1500. these will be additional personnel and as i answered to spence, broken down into two buckets. the advise and assist bucket and the training bucket. >> how long will it take to get these up to 1500? >> some will start flowing in as soon as this month. it will take, for the building partner capacity, it will take probably a couple of months, two to three months to get the sites prepared and the regiment started. and the training itself, we anticipate between six months and seven months. to complete the training, yes. that doesn't mean they are all

going to start training on the same day but roughly the training regimen will be set for six to seven months. >> this is the better part of a year? >> between eight months and 10 months total depending on, again, how long it takes to get sites prepared and a curriculum set and trainers in place. it's going to take us a little bit of time to get the personnel inside iraq. we can move quickly but it will take some weeks to get them all there. >> when you say that within these numbers, there will be additional enablers to include force protection. what combat power is going to be going into iraq? more apaches? >> i did not say more apaches but there'll be force protection capabilities provided along with these trainers and advisers. absolutely. we are not going to put people in harm's way unnecessarily.

what's that? >> the forces that go into protect your trainers and advisers, they are not combat troops? >> no more than the protection personnel there right now that is providing assistance to embassies. no more than that. obviously, they are trained. they are trained troops and they will be able to defend themselves and defend the trainers and the advisors. that is their job but they are , not being introduced in a combat role. it's a completely different scenario altogether and there has been no change to that we will not reintroduce combat troops. >> will any of these additional advisers have the authority to call in airstrikes? >> that is not part of the mission set, no.

>> on wednesday night strikes against the group, who was killed and are they still a threat? >> we still believe the group remains a threat. nobody has taken an eye off of that and i don't have an update you on the effectiveness specifically of the strikes. we do know they were successful in that they hit the targets we were aiming at. not to include some facilities as well as a vehicle. we believe there were some casualties as a result of those strikes but i am not in a position to identify who they were or exactly how many there were. >> can you explain how the pentagon differentiates between the different terrorist groups. there is some skepticism regarding the terms. can you hit one without the other? >> they don't have identification card and we

recognize that. they are an offshoot of al qaeda. we have been watching them for some time. very violent and very capable unit. it is small but lethal. , i can't say how one member may associate himself and their loyalties fluctuate over time. what i can tell you is that the strikes we took are aimed at the group members. christina. >> several questions. your statement earlier said the 1500 were going and in concert with an offensive against isis in iraq. does that mean it won't start until the forces are trained up? >> you may have misinterpreted what i meant by that. i meant what we're doing in the training and advising is in keeping with the offensive

campaign that iraqi security forces want to be able to continue to conduct. i've heard all this talk about a spring offensive. you will have to talk to the iraqis about what their campaign plan looks like, but they are going on offense now. this is designed to be able to help them continue to be able to do that and improve their capability on the battlefield. the timing of it is not tied to some campaign plan that will will begin at the end of training. assuming we get the funds authorized from congress to do this, you will see both happening at the same time. training, advising, assisting, and fighting. >> >> does congress need to billionthe five point 6 -- 5.6 billion before troops start flowing their? >> yes.

>> of the 870 trainers, that means 200 will be at each training site throughout iraq. >> we are working out the exact numbers. i think it is fair to say that roughly each site would have a couple of hundred or so. it will fluctuate over time and we are still working the sourcing solutions. i answered to spence in terms of breaking it down to the building partnership capacity and again, i want to foot stomp, there will be contributions from coalition nations, primarily the training mission. we will see coalition members stepping up. we already have, stepped up to agree to do this. >> justin asked you earlier about comments, showing the iraqi government had to show willingness to arm and work with the sunnis.

you said they have been shown willingness to do outreach but has the prime minister said he is willing to arm sunnis? is that a reason for this dissuasion? can you tell me specifically what the trainers will be doing? how will different will it be than the training in 2011? are we going back to basics? is it something more specific? know if the prime minister has said specifically that he is willing to arm them. his he has demonstrated is willingness to reach out to them, to be encloses of them and their concerns. as i said to justin, we do expect that there will likely be a role for sunni tribesmen in this training effort. we have more work to do on that. what they will be trained to do -- it's going to be helping them with command-and-control.

i'm not talking about advising. inping to train them command-and-control, and battlefield leadership, and technical organization, in , inuver, in logistics intelligence matters. it will be training as much across the board as we can. we will be focusing on what the needs are. until we get the grades identified and in -- there has to be a little flexibility. we will have to be flexible. we are basically trying to improve their battlefield confidence -- competence. are you saying that prime minister maliki's effort was a degradation? >> yes.

>> can you remedy that? you doubt the veracity of what were trying to do here? plus that proved to be a problem. >> you are basically saying you do not believe it is not enough. >> this is important. this is at the request of the iraqi government. this is what they asked us to do. the requirement is coming from them. based on that requirement, we believe that this is an appropriate number of troops to devote to the mission, absolutely. if we did not believe this is the right number, we would not have submitted it. >> are they paying for it? why are we paying for it? >> i said this at the outset. it will be contingent on this authorization. at a needs to be commitment from a rock to pay a portion of the funds to support

this. as well, there will be an expectation that coalition members were also fun. -- fund. it will be a component that others will demands be dedicated to it. >> did you say that there might be a role for the sunni tribes to train in the u.s. run training facilities? are you describing a scenario where the president authorizes a situation where u.s. servicemembers will be training the irregular sunni units? >> we are looking at that. there may be a role for sunni tribesmen in this process. we are still working through that. i don't have anything more detailed for you. we recognize that outreach to the sunni tribes is key.

we are still working our way through what that would look like. the rest of itqi will come through this training? for ninel be set up iraqi the grades and three peshmerga legates. iraqi brigades and three peshmerga brigades. we do in vision this process could be used to help with the training and development of the national guard program. that is not the plan. that is not the intent at the outset. there could be a role for that later on. >> will these trainers go out with these forces after their trained? >> no. >> with the coalition trainers? >> i can't speak for them. to put the intent

trainers in the field with these units once they are trained. nothing has changed about the policy. there will be no reintroduction of combat troops in iraq. >> does this potentially increase the risks of these forces to have them spread out? >> no mission is risk-free. you know that. that's why i talk a lot about before protection and enablers. the majority of the numbers of troops that will be in the advise and assist mission will not be advisers. they will be force protection personnel as well as command-and-control. very little that we do doesn't entail risks. we try to mitigate that the best we can. these trainers will be operating at six sites, sites we are surveying now. force protection will be foremost on the general's mind.

if there is any enhancements that need to be made, it will be done with that in mind. the sites will be fixed locations? >> yes, absolutely. reports you comment on that the canadian government has committed to buying fighter jets. the government is waiting for a letter of intent. >> i will not comment on that. >> have there been dialogue on the effort? >> i won't speak to in turn of the liberations that we may have or not have with the foreign governments. i will point you to the government. > on the topic at >> has canada been among those

talking about the potential increase -- >> i could speak for denmark today because we met with them today and secured their permission for me to actually talk about the commitment they were willing to make but i wouldn't speak for other countries. obviously canada is involved here. they've been helping on the humanitarian side. they're flying air strikes over iraq. very, very capable, effective military. glad to have them on board. as for this particular mission set, again, let the canadian government speak for itself. >> is there on your part an ask out to all coalition partners? >> we have approached many coalition partners, especially those that we know have skills this kind of training and tried to solicit their interest in it but ultimately as we've said all along, this has to be something that each country has to do on their own or not do on their own and those arehe