YOURCA
Suburban street at night. One complex has lights on, the others don't. A girl (teen) is inside while boyfriend checks the hood. Stalled car on road. CU of girl's face looks at sky worried about thunder. Shields self from rain with newspaper. Boy checks hood. CU newspaper headline: 'More Snow, Cold Forecast'. Woman tunes to radio at home (3/4 rear shot). Weatherman pointing to meteorological charts. Meteorologist drafts charts. Assistant brings him index cards. Mechanical thresher threshes wheat or grain (panoramic shot). CU thresher. Boy with stalled convertible sees girlfriend, enter another car. Boy looks upset, kicks something, looks at sky. Man in suit speaks in front of chalkboard. Boy tinkering with electronic consoles. Has headphones on. Boy talks into microphone (side shot). Man in suit stands behind table with globe, test tubes, and fancy pens. CU tabletop with journal (leather bound) and drafting compass. CU globe and test tubes. Girl and boy in high school lab filling test tubes. Does atmospheric experiment. High school girl is heating metal over Bunsen burner. Man in suit holds up high school diploma. CU chalkboard says 'CHEMISTRY, PHYSICS, MATH, ENGLISH, GEOGRAPHY, LANGUAGES.' Students walking in college campus (twilight). Professor lecturing on calculus, pointing at sine wave on chalkboard with students watching. Boy doing electricity experiments with spinning generator. Girl does chemistry experiment. Sign: Meteorology Building. Professor draws lines on globe. Class demonstrates weather fronts using liquid tank. Clouds, rain clouds. Metal ball rolls off spinning disk. Woman walks in front of old college building. Boy fiddles with mercurial barometer. Man reaches into sheltered thermometer. Man spins cyclometer. Boy measures inches of precipitation in canister. Boy checks teletype. CU teletyping on paper. Boy examining readout from teletype. Students answer professor's questions. CU charting readout data onto maps with fountain pen. Professor looks over the charting. Three students and one girl analyze charted map with professor. Girl charts maps. Student and professor over backlit map (bird's eye shot). Boy throws ball of paper into bin. Snow covered mountain range. Wheat waving in wind with hazy mountain in the horizon. Sun scorched vegetation, looks like the banks of Amazon River. Weather boat. Man recording gauge readouts. Weather balloon is brought out of warehouse and launched. Radiocaster announcing weather. Man picks up phone. Dam (helicopter shot). Radar. Jet with smoke trail. Lightning footage (B&W). Flood (brown soiled water). Ship. CU tires slipping in snow. CU switchboard. Man staring closely at glass on table. Rocket is readied then launched. Clouds pan to mountaintop (nice). Time lapse shot of clouds passing during sunset. Smoke billowing from factory skyline during sunset. Footprints in snow.
GEO-29 Beta SP
MISC. HAWAII NEWS FOOTAGE
TORNADO MATERIAL FOR MUIR - Mostly interviews
Mostly interviews - no b-roll FTG FOR COVERAGE ON OKLAHOMA TORNADOES / EXT BROLL AND INTS ON TORNADOES FOR DAVID MUIR 5110 MIKE B FOR WORLD NEWS RS 5110 MUIR OK FEED 415PM 16:09;42 JASON: THAT TORNADO REALLY STARTED HERE AND WENT ALL THE WAY ACROSS MOORE. MUIR: YOU ACTUALLY SAW IT COME DOWN. J: I ACTUALLY SAW IT COME DOWN AND I HAVE SOME VIDEO OF THAT. M: AND YOU ARE SHOOTING FROM RIGHT HERE? J: YUP AND MY WIFE IS YELLING AT ME FROM OVER THERE TO GET INSIDE THE CAR MUIR: SAYING ITS NOT WORTH IT J; YEA. MUIR; SO YOU'RE WATCHING IT DO AND WHATS IT LOOK LIKE AND WHAT DOES IT SOUND LIKE. J; INITIALLY EVERYTHING ROTATES I MEAN THE ENTIRE SKY AND THEN A VERY SMALL FUNNEL CAME DOWN AND BY THE TIME I LOOKED AGAIN IT WAS MUCH LARGER AND CLOSER AND BY THE TIME WE WENT DOWN AND CAME BACK UP I MEAN OBVIOUSLY IT GREW I MEAN WE ARE TALKING A LOT BIGGER THAN I SAW WHEN I FIRST CAME INSIDE. M: AND YOUR WIFE'S NAME IS? J; KAYLA M; KAYLA. SO KAYLA CALLS YOU IN AND TELL ME WHERE YOU GO. 161022 J: SO WE COME AROUND HERE AND SHE (AUDIO LOST) (MUIR AND JASON WALK TO THE STORM SHELTER AND GO INSIDE.) J: AND OF COURSE MY WIFE DID SUCH A GOOD JOB OF ACTUALLY HAVING EVERYTHING READY (AUDIO) WE GOT ELECTRICITY COMING IN. TOYS FOR THE KIDS. EVERYTHING IS SET UP AND CLEAN. LANTERNS. M; THIS IS MADE OF J; THIS IS CONCRETE. M: CONCRETE YEA THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. J; IT'S GOT VENTILATION HERE AND HERE. WE ACTUALLY HAD CONCRETE DUST AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS, IT ACTUALLY GOT FOGGY IN HERE WHEN THE TORNADO WENT ACROSS JUST FROM WHATEVER WAS BEING SUCKED DOWN IN. M: NO KIDDING. SO YOU COULDN'T SEE. J: THAT'S CORRECT M: EVEN WITH THE LANTERN. J: YEA WE COULD SEE BUT IT WAS GETTING FOGGY AND THE PRESSURE. 161120 M; YOU COULD FEEL IT IN YOUR EARS? J: OH YEA OUR EARS POPPED PROBABLY 4 TIMES IN ABOUT 10 SECONDS THEY KEPT POPPING AND KEPT POPPING AND KEPT POPPING. M: WAS THAT MAKNIG THE KIDS NERVOUS. J: THAT WAS MAKING THEM VERY NERVOUS, THEY WERE ALL JUST SEATED IN A ROW RIGHT HERE, MY WIFE WAS THERE AND I WAS ON THE STEPS HOLDING THE DOOR, THE DOORS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO OPEN, AND SURE ENOUGH WHENEVER SOME DEBRIS CAME BY IT ACTUALLY OPENED THIS LATCH AND I HAD TO RELATCH IT AGAIN M: ARE YOU HOLDING THE DOOR DOWN. J: YEA I'M HOLDING IT AND ITS LATCHED BUT AND I LET GO AND MY SON SAID ' DAD LOOK' AND IT HAD COME UNLATCHED BECAUSE SOMETHING HAD HIT ON THE OUTSIDE. M; DEBRIS? J; AND UNLATCHED IT. SO I LATCHED IT BACK AND THIS METAL WAS POPPING IN AND OUT FROM THE PRESSURE AND SO I WAS LOOSELY HOLDING IT JUST TO MAKE SURE IT DIDN'T UNLATCH M: BUT YOU COULD SEE THE PRESSURE OF THE TORNADO AGAINST THE METAL DOOR. J: YEA THE METAL WAS POPPING IN AND OUT. M: AND WHAT DOES THIS SOUND LIKE? J: IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN YOU JUST FEEL LIKE THERES A HUGE WEIGHT ON TOP OF EVERYTHING. IT'S LOUD, IT'S JUST A HUGE WEIGHT, THEERES NOT A SPECIFIC SOUND, IT JUST ALL ENCOMPASSING IN YOUR EARS I GUESS BECAUSE YOUR EARS ARE POPPING AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND THEN WHEN IT LEAVES ITS JUST DEAD CALM I MEAN ABSOLUTE DEAD CALM. M; SILENCE. J: ABSOLUTE SILENCE WHICH IS REALLY EERIE THEN WHEN YOU LIFT EVERYTHING UP ALL THE MOVEMENT IS TOTALLY STILL AND SO WHENEVER YOU LOOK OUT ITS JUST EXACTLY LIKE YOU SEE TODAY ITS JUST INCREDIBLE TO KNOW THAT THAT ALL HAPPENED IT ABOUT 60 SECONDS 161254 M: BUT BEFORE YOU OPEN UP THIS HATCH YOU TELL THE KIDS WHAT? J: MY WIFE SAID. MY DAUGHTER ASKED SOMETHING ABOUT THE HOUSE AND MY WIFE SAID 'HONEY THERE IS NO HOUSE' AND THEN I OPENED THE DOOR JUST A LITTLE BIT JUST TO SEE IF IT WAS SAFE AND TURN MY CAMERA ON AND GO OUT. M: AND THAT'S WHEN THE VIDEO PICKS UP?? J: THAT'S WHEN THE VIDEO PICKS UP AND I LITERALLY SAW IT THROUGH THE EYES OF THE CAMERA AND THAT'S WHY I WAS TURNING IT AROUND, JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT EVERYHTHING AND I WAS SHOCKED BY JUST HOW FAR IT WENT BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A SMALL PATH AND IT JUST DESTROYED EVERYTHING AROUND. (CAMERA COMES DOWN INTO THE SHELTER) 16:14;10 M; SO YOU WERE ACTUALLY HOLDING THE LATCH DOWN. WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS A DOOR OR A HATCH? J: YEA ITS JUST THE DOOR I HAD THE LATCH SHUT. M: AND YOU SAW THE LATCH TURN BECAUSE OF DEBRIS. J: THAT'S RIGHT. M: SO THEN YOU TURN IT BACK AND YOU'RE HOLDING THE DOOR DOWN AND WHEN YOU OPEN THE DOOR.. J: WHEN I OPEN THE DOOR AND YOUR EYES KIND OF GET USED TO IT AND THEN YOU JUST LOOK OUT AND EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY STILL AND OF COURSE THERES NOBODY OUTSIDE YET AND IT WAS JUST BARELY RAINING AND THEN YOU JUST HAVE SOMETHING THAT COMES OVER YOU THAT SAYS I HAVE NO CARS I HAVE NO NOTHING AND CELL PHONES ARENT WORKING AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN HERE WANTING TO GET OUT BUT THERES REALLY NOWHERE FOR THEM TO GO. 16;14;50 M; YOUR CARS ARE UPSIDE DOWN? J: YEA MY CAR IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE NEIGHBORS FENCE, IT MSUT HAVE BEEN AIRBORNE AT SOMEPOINT BECAUSE THE (MUMBLED) IS STILL THERE. M: AND ITS UPSIDE DOWN J: YEP ITS UPSIDE DOWN AND CRUSHED. M: UNBELIEVABLE. HOW MUCH OF THIS IS UNDERGROUND? J: ACTUALLY ALL OF IT. THIS IS GROUND LEVEL RIGHT HERE AND THEN BECAUSE ITS ON A MOUND, SO THIS ACTUALLY PERFECTLY MADE THIS IS A VERY IDEAL TYPE OF CELLAR. IT'S NOT INSIDE THE HOUSE WHERE YOU COULD GET TRAPPED. THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET WERE ACTUALLY TRAPPED IN THEIR SAFE ROOM BECAUSE SO MUCH DEBRIS WAS ON THE DOOR BUT I WAS ABLE TO OPEN MY DOOR WIDE OPEN. IN FACT THAT'S MY WIFE'S BIGGEST FEAR, THAT RIGHT THERE THE HYDROLIC JACK. M: I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS, DOES THIS LIGHT TURN ON? (DAVID CLOSES THE DOOR) 161540 M: SO TAKE ME BACK TO THAT MOMENT. KAYLA CALLS YOU IN AND YOU COME IN AND YOU CLOSE IT. (JASON SHUTS THE HATCH...GREAT SHOT OF MUIR AND JASON INSIDE THE SHELTER) M: AND YOU'RE LATCHED. J: AND THAT SEEMS REALLY SOLID. M: YEA IT DOES, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYTHING COULD OPEN THAT LATCH. J: RIGHT BUT THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN. I DID THIS AND IT WAS BARELY ON AND POPPING AND I PULL IT BACK DOWN AND TRY TO HOLD IT. M: SO YOU'RE INSIDE HERE AND AS PEOPLE AT HOME CAN SEE YOU HAVE LANTERNS. J: WE HAVE LANTERNS AND ANOTHER INTERESTING THING IS OUR LIGHT POPPED WHEN WE WERE IN HERE. M: WOW THE PRESSURE. J: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE PRESSURE, THE ELECTRCITY, I DON'T KNOW BUT IT POPPED. M; SO YOU HAVE LIGHTS IN HERE BUT AT ONE POINT YOU SAID IT BECAME SO FOGGY BECAUSE OF THE TORNADO. J; IT BECAME VERY FOGGY BECAUSE LIKE THIS TURBINE WAS SPINNING TO SUCK AIR IN BUT IT WAS SUCKING ALL THE DUST IN HERE AS WELL SO IT BECAME EXTREMELY FOGGY. M: HOW WERE YOU KEEPING THE KIDS CALM? 161636 J: THEY WERE JUST SITTING STILL AND THEY WERE CRYING A LITTLE BIT AND WE WERE JUST TELLING THEM ITS GOING TO BE OK, IT'S GOING TO PASS IN JUST A MINUT, WE'RE ALL TOTALLY FINE, AND WE JUST TRIED TO ASSURE THEM THAT THE BOX WE'RE IN WASN'T GOING ANYWHERE. M: THIS WHOLE THING IS UNDERGROUND? J: THIS WHOLE THING IS UNDERGROUND. M: AND IT'S MADE OF CONCRETE AND THE SCHOOLS DON'T HAVE THESE? J: WELL THE NEW CASTLE SCHOOL ACTUALLY HAS AN EXTREMELY GOOD ONE BECAUSE A MAY 3RD TORNADO CAME THROUGH YEARS AGO AND AFTER THAT THEY PUT IN AN ENTIRE BUILDING THAT IS A SAFE ROOM AND THEY CAN LITERALLY TAKE ALL THE CHILDREN INTO A GIGANTIC BUILDING AND ITS ENTIRE PURPOSE. M: THAT'S NEW CASTLE WHAT? MIDDLE SCHOOL? J: NEW CASTLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. M: ELEMENTARY DOWN THE STREET. BUT THE OTHER TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.DO WE KNOW AT NEWCASTLE DID THEY USE THE SAFEROOM? J: THEY DIDN'T THEY ACTUALLY DID ONE BETTER THAN THAT, THEY TOLD THE PARENTS TO COME GET THEM WAY BEFORE THE STORM BECAUSE ONCE THE STORM HITS THEY'D BE ON LOCKDOWN AND SO IT WAS BETTER TO LET THE KIDS GO AHEAD AND GO AND BE SAFE WITH THEIR FAMILIES. 161733 M: DID YOU HAVE A KID AT NEWCASTLE? J: YEP SO WE WENT AND GOT TWO OF OUR CHILDREN. M: CUZ YOU HAVE TEENAGERS, GIVE ME THE AGES AGAIN. J: WE HAVE A 13, 11, AND 10 SO WE WENT AND GOT THOSE THREE AND BROUGHT THOSE BACK AND I CAME HOME FROM WORK AND. M: SO THE 10 YEAR OLD IS AT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. J: YEA ACTUALLY 10 AND 11 ARE ACTUALLY IN THAT MIDDLE.. M; MIDDLE AREA. SO WHAT DO YIOU HAVE DOWN HERE. SUPPLIES OBVIOUSLY. J: WE HAVE SUPPLIES, WE HAVE TOYS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE..WATER (SHOT OF SUPPLIES) FOOD AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE IN HERE SAVED UP. WE HAVE BLANKETS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ENOUGH THINGS TO WHERE WE COULD STAY DOWN HERE FOR QUITE A WHILE. WE ALREADY TOOK OUT, WE GOT OUR PASSPORTS, EVERYTHING SO ITS GOOD TO HALF A WIFE THAT'S PREPARED AS THAT. WE KIND OF MAKE FUN OF HER FOR DOING THAT SO MUCH BUT ...THATS WHAT ..ALL THE BATTERIES WERE READY AND THIS IS THE ONLY KIND OF LIGHT WE HAD. (MUIR DEMONSTRATES THE SIZE OF THE SHELTER) 161855 M: I JUST WANT TO GIVE THE FOLKS AT HOME AN IDEA OF HOW WIDE THIS IS. I CAN REACH OUT HERE AND TOUCH BOTH WALLS WITH MY FINGERS THIS IS NOT A HUGE SPACE. SO YOU HAD FOUR KIDS AND TWO ADULTS SO THE WHOLE FAMILY IS DOWN HERE?? J: YES THE WHOLE FAMILY. M; IF I CAN REACH OUT AND TOUCH BOTH SIDES WHATS THE WIDTH OF THIS. J; I BET YOU ITS 6 FEET, 5 FEET GOING IN THAT DIRECTION AND MAYBE 7 FEET GOING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.6 FEET TALL. M: WOW WELL THAT IS THIKING AHEAD, AND IT SAVED ALL OF YOURS LIVES. J: YEA IT DID, AND I'M JUST EXTREMELY THANKFUL THAT WE WERE AS PREPARED AS WE WERE AND WE'RE ALL TOGETHER FOR ONE THING. IF I HAD BEEN AT WORK WHENT HIS WOULDA HAPPENED I WOULD HAVE BEEN..IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HORRIBLE SO I'M GLAD I WAS HERE. 161943 M: WHY WERE YOU HERE? J: I HAD TAKEN OFF THAT DAY SOME ALREADY AND WAS IN TOWN AND SHE SAID 'YOU KNOW I THINK THE STORM IS GOING TO HIT' EARLIER IN THE DAY..ADN THERE WASN'T A CLOUD IN THE SKY, I MEAN YOU COULD LOOK AT WEATHER RADAR IN THE WHOLE STATE, NOT A CLOUD, I STILL CAME HOME ANYWAY AND SURE ENOUGH IT SPRUNG UP SO FAST. M: WHAT DO YOU DO JASON. J; I'M AN IT MANAGER FOR INTEGRIS HEALTH. M; DOES KAYLA WORK? J; NOPE SHE'S A STAY AT HOME MOM. M; THAT IS A BIG JOB IN ITSELF. NOW IT'S COMPLETELY QUIET. J; IT'S COMPLETELY QUIET JUST LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW. 162020 M: SO WHEN THE TORNADO IS DONE IT'S COMPLETELY QUIET . LIKE THIS. J; YEA ITS EXACTLY LIKE THIS EXCEPT FOR SOME SNIFFLING FROM THE CHILDREN. M: THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. J: SO AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SIT HERE AND THINK IS IT REALLY TIME TO GO..SO WE WAITED JUST A LITTLE BIT AND THEN M: SHOW ME WHAT YOU DID. J: WE..I WAS ACTUALLY OVER HERE HOLDING THE LATCH THE WHOLE TIME AND THEN WHEN YOU PULL IT OPEN YOU'LL NOTICE (HE OPENS THE LATCH) ITS HARD TO GET YOUR BEARINGS FOR JUST A SECOND AND THEN IT LOOKS JUST LIKE THIS (THEY WALK OUTSIDE) M: COULD YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU WERE SEEING? J: NO NOT WHEN EVERYTHING WAS MANICURED BEFORE HAND AND BEAUTIFUL HOMES AND TREES AND ACTUALLY A REALLY NICE AREA AND THEN (AUDIO CUTS OUT) M: THAT'S YOUR CAR OVER THERE? SO THIS IS YOUR CAR IN YOUR NEIGHBORS YARD. J: RIGHT SO YOU'LL NOTICE IT HOPPED THE FENCE AT SOME POINT BECAUSE THE FENCE IS STILL THERE BUT ITS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. I STILL DON'T KNOW WHO'S CAR THAT IS (THEY ARE WLKING OVER TO THE RUBBLE) M: YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S CAR THAT IS? J: NO IDEA OR WHERE IT CAME FROM M: THIS CAR'S JUST FROM SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. J: I MEAN IT AT LEAST TRAVELLED I MEAN WE ARE TALKING A LONG WAYS TO GET TO WHERE THAT IS. SO ..AND I HAD A BARN THERE THAT BARN WHERE YOU SEE THE SLAB ABSOLUTELY SHEERED OFF COMPELTELY I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BARN IS I'M SURE ITS IN A FEW PIECES. THIS IS A HYUNDAI AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT ROLLED THIS DIRECTION. 162200 M: RIGHT OVER THE FENCE J: YOU'LL NOTICE SOMEBODY'S CAR NO LONGER HAS A TIRE I THINK IT'S THAT ONE OVER THERE. M: WELL YOU'VE GOT YOUR FOUR TIRES. J; I'VE GOT MY FOUR TIRES THAT'S RIGHT. M: I DON'T KNOW WHAT GOOD THAT'S GOING TO DO YOU THOUGH I MEAN LOOK AT HOW MANGLED THE CAR IS JUST GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF .. J: AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY SMASHED FROM THE TOP. 162256 (SHOT OF DESTROYED HOUSE) J: WE HAVE PEOPLE'S LAWN MOWERS AND OTHER TYPES OF VEHICLES. M: DO YOU SEE YOUR WIFE OUT HERE? J: I THINK SHE'S INSIDE TRYING TO DO A BIT OF INVENTORY ALONG WITH SOME OF THE OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE WORKING.. M: I HEAR THAT THUNDER ROLLING IN RIGHT NOW. J: WHAT'S FUNNY IS IN OKLAHOMA NOBODY IS SCARED BY THAT KIND OF THING, WE'RE REALLY NOT SCARED BY WEATHER BUT TORNADOES YOU GOT TO RESPECT. (THEY WALK TOWARDS THE HOUSE) (JASON AND DAVID WALK AROUND LOOKING FOR KAYLA) (SOME NBEIGHBORS COME BY) NEIGHBOR: WE'VE GOT ABOUT 30 PEOPLE AND TWO BOBCATS THAT WANT TO START HELPING IF YOU'RE READY FOR HELP J: YEA WE'RE READY I MEAN I THINK WITH 30 PEOPLE AND A BOBCAT THAT'S PROBABLY.PROBABLY START GRABBING JUNK AND PUTTING IT INTO PILES. NEIGHBOR; THE FIRST PROBLEM IS GETTING THEM IN HERE THEY'RE REALLY HARDCORE ABOUT IT. WE'RE ACTUALLY PROBABLY GOING TO NEED YOU .. M: HEY JASON WHAT'S YOUR LAST NAME. 162416 J: LEGER...L.E....G..E...R. (THEY WALK THROUGH THE RUBBLE OF THE HOUSE) (SHOT OF SIGN ON CAR "AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE WE WILL SERVE THE LORD") J: MY FAMILY MADE THAT AT CHURCH CAMP. 162517 David Muir going through rubble 162630 Men going through rubble 162705 KAYLA Interview: I get anxiety when I'm down in a cellar but this time I was a little calm and I'm going to contribute that to the Lord for knowing what I needed at that time because the kids were obviously upset and I just kept telling them '4-5 minutes' we can do anything for 4-5 minutes and it'll all be over and they were thinking about the house and everything and I wasn't really I just kept thinking to myself if we keep sitting here and talking to each other, then that lets me know we're ok. If we're not up there in that chaos not getting injured. You wonder if that door's gonna open and we're gonna get sucked out into the storm because the metal was bending and everything so it's like as long as we're sitting here and I'm talking to my kids we're ok. 162823 You know you always hear the freight train I don't know that U heard the freight train because the pressure got so hard that we wanted to grab our ears it's like something was pushing on our entire body and we were talking to each other, I remember talking to the kids but I couldn't hear them and they couldn't hear me, so obviously it was loud if we had to yell at each other and we're this far from each other. 162852 But then Sure enough I was like honey we've already been through 2 minutes which means there's 3 more minutes to go and right after I said that.. Silence.. Silence, like you could have heard pen drops. It was silent and then I could see the cement and that's when I saw that the house and all of a sudden the smell and it was like a mortar, cement kind of smell and that's when I knew the house had been hit, it started falling through the vents and that's when I knew it was our house. 162932 What do you have there 162936 This is what I was most worried about, last night, of course we didn't sleep much last night but my baby books I have all of them, they were under my bed which Jason had made out of cedar which means it was extremely heavy, so I'm happy I have this and my wedding dress (laughs) that's what I was most concerned about. 163002 Entire family, that's amazing 163004 That's all that matters for sure, everybody keeps saying to me, you can look forward to a better house, you can get the kitchen you always wanted that and I just can't go there right now I can't think that right now, I'm not quite sure about tomorrow much less 6 months from now so 163028 Thank you, I'm glad you're all ok Me too praise God.. And you've got a lot of help here.. I just heard there are seven trucks of kits from Memorial Roads Church of Christ coming our way 163042 Footage of baby books in her hand The search for survivors continues in Moore, OK, after deadly tornadoes took the lives of 24 victims. That is a new revised death toll coming from the Oklahoma City Medical Examiner's office. The shock, horror and violence of the twisters has taken an incredible toll on the residents of Moore. The federal government has offered to provided whatever resources are necessary to deal with the disaster. President Obama will deliver a statement on the tornadoes this morning. More tornadoes are threatening to spark today, with parts of Texas and Arkansas at severe risk for tornadic activity, though many more states could be affected by severe storms, including Oklahoma for a third straight day.
Iraq - Part 1 - 3/19/03 - 4/3/03
International Events 00144 Subject: Iraq Area: International Events Source: APTN - Library Thematic Clipreels - Volume 31 Iraq IV (War in Iraq and Military Activity in the Gulf - Part 1 - 3/19/03-4/3/03) ***BROADCASTERS PLEASE NOTE UNDER US/UK EMBEDDING RULES AND THE GENEVA CONVENTION THE FACES OF POWS SHOULD BE DISGUISED WHERE IDENTIFIABLE*** 10:00:30 (b) 3/17/03 Washington, DC SOUNDBITE: (English) George W. Bush, US President : "All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing." 3/19/03 Kuwait Wide of soldier walking in sandstorm Various military vehicles manoeuvring during sandstorm Sign to camp being buffeted by wind Tank driving between dunes in sandstorm Soldier walking in sandstorm Soldier sheltering from wind in tent Soldier in tank taking off goggles and mask Line of vehicles Tornado taxiing on tarmac Midshot of cockpit Tornado taxiing up runway 10:01:48 (a) 3/19/03 Kuwait Soldier working equipment, US flag flying behind him Various of soldier packing ammunition Soldier directing tank Low shot underside of tank as it moves off 3/19/03 Baghdad Wide shot of traffic on the streets of Baghdad Men loading cars and trucks with shop supplies in boxes Interior pan inside shop SOUNDBITE: (Arabic) vox pop: "All shop goods and equipment have been transported outside the city and we have covered the shop fronts to protect our personal goods". Various of men locking up shop fronts Various of shops locked up with iron shutters Various of shops locked up Wide of Iraqi National Assembly during emergency session SOUNDBITE (Arabic) Salem Al-Kubaissi, Head of Iraqi parliamentary committee on international affairs: "You, the great Iraqi population, this is your fate, this is your history which is littered with bravery and honour to rub the nose of the devil in the quagmire of defeat which it has chosen for itself. After you have presented masses and masses of bravery, initiative and courage to protect the holy nation and to stand by your united decision, to stand by the leadership of the president, the Mujahid Saddam Hussein." Wide pan of assembly with all visible members raising their arms to vote in agreement 3/19/03 Aboard USS Constellation in the Gulf Various of military personnel gathered on USS Constellation hangar deck for address by admiral Vice Admiral Timothy J Keating, US Fifth Fleet commander walks on to stage, greets assembled troops with a victory gesture Audience applauding SOUNDBITE (English) Vice Admiral Timothy J Keating, US Fifth Fleet commander: "Make no mistake, when the president says go, look out - it's hammer time - okay? It is hammer time". 10:04:51 (b) 3/19/03 Washington, DC SOUNDBITE (English) George W. Bush, US President: "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selective targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war" 10:05:19 (d) 3/20/03 Unknown location Various Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched from the USS Donald Cook Two Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched from the USS Milius 10:05:42 (c) 3/20/03 Iraqi TV Graphic of Iraqi flag SOUNDBITE (Arabic) Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq: "Just before dawn on the 26.3. 2003 the aggression has started... " (TV signal drops out) Color bars appear on screen 10:06:08 (a) 3/20/03 Baghdad Pull out from girl looking at camera, girl and boys run, AUDIO siren 3/20/03, Aboard USS Constellation in the Gulf Crew on flight deck F18 Hornet jet taking off 10:06:46 (e) 3/20/03 Ankara Wide shot of parliament in session SOUNDBITE: (Turkish) Bulent Arinc, Parliamentary Chair: "535 members of parliament joined the vote of the Prime Minister's motion. Prime Minister's motion was in a closed session, there were 332 for, 202 against, and 1 abstention, and motion has been accepted." Various shots of MPs SOUNDBITE: (English) Inal Batu, Member of the leading Opposition Party: "The UN system has been virtually destroyed by the United States. International law has been trampled upon, and an illegitimate war has just been launched. And unfortunately today our parliament rewarded all these things." 10:07:34 (b) 3/20/03 Baghdad Various wideshots of Baghdad skyline at night with explosions visible and audible Anti-aircraft fire and explosions 10:07:51 (a) 3/20/03 Baghdad Various, shuttered shops Tracking shot past shuttered shops Close shot of wounded girl Mid shot wounded man on bed SOUNDBITE (Arabic) Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister: "As you have been following, just before dawn, the aggressors of this generation have started their attack against our country. The administration of the United States behaving like a bunch of criminals and following them is their poodle, Tony Blair the Prime Minister of Britain." 10:08:35 (b) 3/20/03 Gulf F-117 approaching to land F-117 Landing and deploying drag chute 10:09:02 (a) 3/20/03 Jordan-Iraq border People arriving at Jordan/Iraq border Close up border sign People getting off bus Wide of Al-Ruweishid camp Pan of UNHCR camp Refugees having their passports checked 10:09:33 (b) 3/20/03 Onboard HMS Ark Royal View from bridge onto carrier deck Various of bridge UPSOUND (English) loudspeaker announcement: "Warning is now yellow....increased likelihood of attack..... no need for monitoring teams at present." Royal Marines on deck 3/20/03 London SOUNDBITE: Tony Blair, British Prime Minister: "On Tuesday night I gave the order for British forces to take part in military action in Iraq. Tonight British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from power and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction". 10:10:27 (a) 3/20/03 Baghdad SOUNDBITE (English) Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister: (Q. Was President Saddam Hussein near any of those places?) "We said those villains, in particular the villain Bush, he said and the British Defence Minister, they said, the Pentagon said, they have striked Iraq with 40 cruise missiles in order to assassinate President Saddam Hussein. The natural answer came when his Excellency Saddam Hussein delivered his speech. So, not only they are disappointed, I think they are now hysterical." 3/20/03 Kalaq, northern Iraq Iraqi checkpoint Militiamen looking through binoculars at Iraqi checkpoint in distance Fighters standing with weapons Various Iraqi checkpoint in the distance 3/20/03 Near Irbil, northern Iraq LS of Iraqi gun in position 3/20/03 Kuwait City Wide shot, Kuwait city street with sound of sirens Man with gas mask looking in back of car, pull out to wide Mid shot, two men in gas masks Tanks driving through street 3/20-21/03 Northern Kuwait Various of missiles being launched from ground, US 3rd infantry division 3/20-21/03 Southern Iraq Various of M1 tanks and Bradley's moving through desert Tracking shot, passing burned out vehicle remains Various of M1 tanks and Bradley's moving through desert 10:13:23 (f) 3/20/03 STILL - This National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, satellite image from 520 miles in space shows an undetermined number of oil well fires in Iraq, the plumes of which are visible, indicated by the arrow STILL - This National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, satellite image from 520 miles in space shows an undetermined number of oil well fires in Iraq, the plumes of which are visible, indicated by the arrow 10:13:52 (b) 3/21/03 Kuwait looking in the direction of Iraq Smoke billowing clear sight of moon VS Smoke filled sky 10:14:01 (a) 3/21/03 Baghdad Night vision footage missiles hitting Baghdad building, AUDIO of missile fire, large plumes of smoke coming from building Night vision - flashes of light from missiles over Baghdad, audio of missile fire Night vision footage - AUDIO missiles hitting Baghdad building, large plumes of smoke coming from building Explosion over Baghdad skyline Massive cloud of smoke from explosion Explosion lights up skyline Presidential palace on fire, black smoke pouring out Explosion lights up skyline Presidential palace on fire, black smoke pouring out 10:16:01 (c) SOUNDBITE (Arabic) Iraqi TV presenter, "By the name of God, the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, the commander of the Iraqi forces, may God protect him. He held a meeting which involved his son Qusay, a member of the leadership of the Ba'ath party and the commander in chief of the Republican Guards, and Sultan Hashim Ahmed, the defence minister." Close up of flower Long shot over soundbite of Saddam Hussein in meeting with Qusay 10:16:28 (b) 3/21/03 Northern Kuwait (near border with Iraq) Wide shot tank driving (a) 3/21/03 Northern Kuwait (near border with Iraq) Various of 155 mm Howitzers firing shots into Iraq Artillery shooting shots Flashes across sky Close shot of armoured personnel carriers (APCs) driving past camera carrying US Marines of the Marines Expeditionary Unit Wide reverse shot of line of armoured vehicles driving away from camera along along Highway (main route into Iraq) Various of military vehicles moving Helicopter overhead Mid shot marine Various British artillery troops preparing for action Troops lying down, aiming guns (b) 3/21/03 Southern Iraq Iraqi man kneeling down and holding white flag in surrender, British soldier motions for him to walk forward, then to turn and kneel to be searched British soldier searching surrendering Iraqi Low shot of line of about ten Iraqis in civilian clothing walking with their hands on their heads Iraqi man with white flag Close shot British soldier holding rifle in foreground, surrendering Iraqis walking in background 3/21/03 Safwan, Iraq US marines driving in Safwan, zoom in to huge picture of Saddam Hussein on roadside Various shots Iraqi civilians in the town 3/21/03 Southern Iraq NIGHT SHOT Mid shot Moon NIGHT SHOT Tank with British soldier, driving northwards NIGHT SHOT Mid shot British soldier NIGHT SHOT Burning oil well 3/21/03 Southern Iraq Royal Marines walking away from camera Group of troops by helicopter Troops loading gear into helicopter Wide shot of transporter helicopter with moving rotor blades kicking up dust Wide shot of one helicopter in flight Transporter helicopter taking off in cloud of dust Helicopter taking off, another one passing it already in flight 10:19:21 (g) 3/21/03 Unknown location, the Gulf Wide of GR4 Tornadoes Pilot climbing into cockpit Ground crew walking away from plane CS Pilot's helmet in plane WS Tornado taxiing CS Union Jack flag WS Fight taking off 10:20:01 (a) 3/21/03 Baghdad Wide shot of several men standing in front of Saddam Hussein billboard Mid shot of man holding gun Men patrolling the street Mid shot of man loading a gun SOUNDBITE: (Arabic) Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, Iraqi Information Minister "While I am disclosing one of the sites which were attacked tonight, I say to the American troops who were pushed inside Iraqi territory, I say you'd better surrender because we will decapitate you all, and also those who are pushing you to this aggression against Iraq." 3/22/03 Baghdad SOUNDBITE: (English) Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, Iraqi Information Minister: "In Umm Qasr the fight is fierce. We have inflicted heavy damages on the stupid enemy - the Americans and the British - and they failed fully in making any penetration, any any penetration. What had been by broadcasted by those stooges here and there is completely unbased." 10:22:02 (b) 3/22/03 Southern Iraq 42 Commando Royal Marines firing wire-guided missile before they move in to secure oil-fields Marines looking through binoculars US Marines Cobra attack helicopter flying past Cobra helicopter flying past and firing Various of 42 Commando marines on sandbanks 10:22:33 (a) 3/22/03 USS John S. McCain, northern Persian Gulf Various shots of Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched 10:23:39 (b) 3/22/03 Near Umm Qasr, Iraq (Mute) Various ITN reporter, Terry Lloyd, carrying out report Lloyd's jeep Lloyd in jeep, pan to British soldiers 10:24:01 (a) 3/22/03 Baghdad Tracking shot past buildings with plumes of black smoke in background Tracking shot on highway with plums of black smoke UPSOUND (Arabic) "Bush, Bush, the criminal", men chanting WS Damage to building CS Typewriter on rubble on newly-wed island 10:24:30 (b) 3/22/03 Doha, Qatar General Tommy Franks, US commander leading military operations against Iraq, enters room SOUNDBITE (English) General Tommy Franks, US commander leading military operations against Iraq: (Starts on cutaway of press)" I'm going to begin by saying this will be a campaign unlike any other in history. A campaign characterized by shock, surprise, by flexibility, by the employment of precise munitions, on a scale never before seen, and by the application of overwhelming force." 3/22/03 Southern Iraq 'Welcome to Iraq - from the Fighting 61st. (US Marine Reconnaissance Company). Have a Nice Day' sign at side of road Long shot driving towards burning oil wells Various driving past burning oil wells 3/22/03 Umm Qasr, Iraq Allied soldier standing beside picture of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein Sign for town of Umm Qasr, military vehicles going past Sign that reads "You are approaching the DMZ" Wide shot of port of Umm Qasr Umm Qasr police station sign Pan from building to soldier with gun sitting on top of military vehicle Various of tanks and gunfire 3/22/03 Southern Iraq Shot overlooking Umm Qasr Port from helicopter Mid shot US Marines armour Various of UK Royal Marines in motorboats with Iraqi prisoners Pan line of prisoners Close-up of shivering hands of prisoner Various more prisoners held in desert Mid shot Iraqi weapons 10:27:17 (a) 3/22-23/03 Iraq Wide of tanks in desert Mid shot tank turret turns Tank moves across shot Wide of tanks through heat haze Two Apache helicopters in flight Wide Apache helicopters over tanks Apache helicopter over US soldier sitting on tank Elevated shot of US convoy Wide of burning Iraqi anti aircraft gun 3/23/03 Tikrit, Iraq Pan-up Tikrit Hotel VS Interior Tikrit Hotel VS Picture of Saddam Hussein on the wall of the Tikrit Hotel 10:28:27 (h) 3/23/03 Gulf MS along wing of KC135 strato tanker (refuelling plane) Pilots in cockpit Pilot checking controls Jet flying along Fuel nozzle being attached CS refuelling Jet breaking away VS bombs being prepared at base VS bombs being loaded into planes (a) 3/23/03 Fairford, UK B52 landing, parachute released to help slow it on runway Plane taxiing past control tower, other buildings and military vehicles CS Cockpit as plane turns, ZOOM to WS of rear of B52 10:30:10 (b) 3/23/03 Umm Qasr, Iraq Mid shot troops firing missile from launcher Explosion in building UPSOUND troops cheering and shouting Various troops in position and firing Soldiers preparing equipment UPSOUND (English) "Radio up, radio up, radio up!", gunfire Troops watching target, UPSOUND (English) "It was off, that was off" 3/21/03 Al-Faw, Iraq Various of troops in position, then advancing Various of troops advancing, firing guns 3/23/03 Al-Rumeila, Iraq Various oil fires in distance, thick black smoke rising Low shot oil pipeline on ground, fire in distance 3/23/03 undisclosed location, southern Iraq Long shot Iraqis surrendering Mid shot British soldier walking behind two surrendered Iraqis 10:31:37 (a) 3/22-23/03 Southern Iraq Wide of camels in desert - pull out to tank driving past (b) 3/21/03 Al Faw, Iraq Various of Iraqi weaponry and bunkers Missile being fired from helicopter (offscreen) and exploding in distance, watched by troops in roadside trench (the first time a British helicopter has fired in anger since the 1991 Gulf War) 3/23/03 Al Faw, Iraq Night scope views of coalition troops firing guns from position on top of building in Al Faw Zoom in to close shot of coalition troops firing guns Pan to target of fire, a building. Explosions are seen as gunfire hits building Mid shot of coalition troops in position on top of building Wide shot of target of fire, a building. Explosion as missile hits building NIGHT SCOPE Medium shot of Marines approaching entry point of building NIGHT SCOPE Medium shot of Marines at entry point of building, grenade explodes in building, followed by a second explosion NIGHT SCOPE Medium shot of Marine running out of building with clothes on fire, more Marines follow British soldiers beside abandoned Iraqi artillery gun Device being exploded Close-up of ammunition on the ground SOUNDBITE (English) Lieutenant Dan Gelman, US Marine Corps: (Reporter question: how do you rate the Iraqi soldiers?) "Poor -- we had individuals who gave up instantly, we also had individuals that gave up a fight, but the fight was short lived. Once they saw what they were encountering, they decided they didn't want to play any more." 10:33:26 3/24/03 Qatar VS Showing video footage of precision bombing of Iraqi positions CS Leaflet dropped telling Iraqi soldiers to abandon their weapons CS Leaflet dropped telling Iraqis not to poison their waterways by dumping oil Leaflets telling Iraqi soldiers how to surrender 10:33:52 (i) 3/23/03 Undisclosed location (nightscope) Australian Coalition soldiers on night patrol Close up Australian Coalition soldier 10:34:04 (a) 3/24/03 Baghdad Various wide daylight shots of damaged buildings Men and young boys walking over damaged buildings Various men and rescuers working through the rubble Top wide shot pans across to damaged buildings 3/24/03 Najaf, Iraq BS Shi'ite Muslim worshippers at the Shrine of Ali in Najaf 3/24/03 Fairford, UK B-52 taking off 10:35:39 (b) 3/24/03 Southern Iraq Various shots of oil wells alight Long shot of convoy with burning oil well in background Truck drives past soldier with weapon Iraqi surrenders to 3 Para troops Various shots of captured weapons Painting of Saddam Hussein Troops digging in Soldier with weapon 3/25/03 Umm Qasr and DMZ, Iraq Troops beside large portrait Saddam Hussein Various troops preparing foxhole for mortar Tracked marine vehicle advancing Various of truck with aid and people taking packages Boy looking through binoculars Pan from water to navy divers on boat looking for mines Mid shot divers on boat Diver coming up to surface 3/25/03 Outskirts of Basra, southern Iraq Various British troops firing shells towards Basra Wide shot tank exploding (controlled explosion by British troops) 10:37:32 (a) 3/25/03 Zawita Valley, northern Iraq Midshot tents Pan across camp Midshot camp Woman washing clothes in the open Midshot of old couple in tent 3/25/03 Southern Iraq Mid shot of Marines loading howitzer during heavy sandstorm Wide shot of Royal firing howitzer in reduced visibility because of sandstorm Side shot howitzer firing Wide shot of cityscape showing sky clouded by sandstorm 10:38:25 (j) 3/25/03 Gulf Low wide of RAF AWACS Mid shot AWACS cockpit Interior shot of airman putting on breathing apparatus Mid shot of radar dish 10:38:46 (k) 3/24/03 Rumeila, Iraq Officers of Royal Irish Regiment inspect a machine gun position overlooking the Rumeila oil fields Various of soldiers in a trench Close-up of a map and pulls out to soldier behind machine gun Flames from an oil well in the background with machine gun muzzle in the foreground Sign warning of land mines in the area Various of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines left by Iraqi troops 10:39:44 (a) 3/25/03 USS Constellation, Gulf Aerial shot of jet taking off from USS Constellation, shot from gun position on another aircraft with ammunition and gun in foreground F/A-18 jet taking off Aerial of USS Constellation from gun position on air craft 3/25/03 Baghdad Various of funeral of Iraqis killed in overnight raids Various of grieving Iraqi women Various of coffins in procession on back of trucks 10:40:32 (b) 3/24/03 Rumeila, Iraq Wide of arms cache Soldier standing guard near captured weapons Close-up of anti-aircraft weapons 10:40:49 (h) 3/21/03 Iraq Various burning oil wells 10:41:14 (a) 3/26/03 Baghdad Newspaper 'The Republic' headlines "Fight them, God will punish them through your hands and curse them and will make you victorious" Fire crews outside building pans up to smoke issuing from windows Pulls out from smoking building to wide of debris-strewn street Bomb crater in the ground Burnt car Civilians gathering around Burnt car with a body nearby covered by a blanket Body wrapped in plastic and cardboard on the back of a car 3/25/03 USS John SS McCain, Persian Gulf Night shot of crew on bridge of ship Various night shots of Tomahawk cruise missile launching Cutaway of press on deck Day shot of Tomahawk cruise missile launching 10:42:39 (b) 3/26/03 Umm Qasr, Iraq Various of soldiers entering a building Soldiers force man out of building at gun point Various of Iraqi civilians showing cameraman weapons cache 10:43:38 (a) 3/26/03 Safwan, southern Iraq Various of food being distributed from trucks Wide shot of soldier and press on top of truck from where food is being distributed Mid shot of man running off with cardboard boxes Wide shot to zoom out of soldier and press on top of truck from where food is being distributed 10:44:30 (b) 3/26/03 Road to Umm Qasr, Iraq Various of trucks lined up on Kuwait City to Umm Qasr road Various of loading, signs (in Arabic) "From the Kuwaiti people to the Iraqi people" 10:44:44 (a) 3/27/03 Najaf, Iraq Various wides of US troops in dust storm, north of Najaf - light appears very red due to dust Battalion's flag on one of the vehicles Various of troops inside US command post preparing to attack Iraqi positions Various inside Paladin, troops loading and firing shells Wide exterior of another Paladin vehicle misfiring, small fire flares at end of gun barrel Various of troops running away from burning Paladin Various of vehicle on fire, smoke Various of several explosions coming from fire Rear view of troops walking away, one with tattered, burnt trousers 10:46:06 (b) 3/27/03 Az Zubayr, near Basra in Southern Iraq Wide shot of crowds of Iraqi civilians running to receive aid supplies Various shots of British troops trying to keep civilians from taking boxes of supplies, UPSOUND troops and crowd shouting 3/27/03 Southern Iraq Soldier on de-mining duties crawling on belly in mined area, partially visible sign in foreground: "unexploded ordnance" Various shots of soldier probing ground for mines Wide of controlled explosion of a land-mines 10:46:42 (a) 3/27/03 Kifi, North of Najaf, Iraq Pan of US soldiers and Humvee crossing bridge Various tracking shots of US soldiers crossing bridge walking past bodies of Iraqis Wide shot of broken window (reflection of APC passing), zoom in to painting of New York skyline with World Trade Centre on interior wall Close up of gunner on moving vehicle pan to gun barrel Close up of soldier looking through binoculars Various of gunfight, AUDIO of gunfire, dust rising on horizon Wide shot of vehicle broadcasting message through giant speakers, zoom in to speakers 10:47:37 (b) 3/27/03 Al Faw Peninsula, Iraq Wide of sunrise from military vehicle Mid shot jeeps at other side of channel Soldier aims rifle Surrendering men advance and lie on ground Soldier stopping car Various of soldier checking inside car boot (trunk), shakes driver's hand Soldiers fire into desert 10:48:30 (a) 3/27/03 Baghdad Aftermath of missile strike Burnt out car Arabic sign on damaged building Wide shot of damaged building Burnt out car in front of damaged building Wide shot of hospital corridor with amputee patient 10:49:03 (c) 3/27/03 Baghdad Various of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein meeting high-ranking Ba'ath party officials 10:49:29 (b) 3/27/03 Southern Iraq Doctor tending Iraqis Mother holding young children Close up of baby Squadron Leader Doctor Simon Chappel tending to wound on man's leg Chappel giving instructions to translator Exterior of farm house being used as clinic SOUNDBITE: (English) Squadron Leader Doctor Simon Chappel: "In this area people feel threatened by the regime and they are just ordinary people and we need to win over their hearts and their minds to show them that we are on the side of good rather than evil as we are being portrayed by the regime." 10:50:13 (a) 3/28/03 Baghdad Various of bomb damage in Baghdad 3/28/03 Safwan, Iraq Wide pan from Kuwaiti Red Crescent ambulance to Iraqis crowded around two trucks Long shot of young men scrambling inside truck over aid supplies Close-up of aid boxes being pulled out British troops on watch nearby Wide shot of scene (b) 3/28/03 Gulf Dolphin surfaces beside US Navy rubber boat, handler checks it, it dives again Various of dolphins working with British and Australian troops in search of mines Dolphin jumping and diving Wide shot of channel with British Royal Navy ship, Sir Galahad, coming into port carrying aid Troops standing behind flag on deck, pans up Aid boxes being loaded onto truck at docks Aid boxes being unloaded from Sir Galahad to dockside 10:52:04 (a) 3/28/03 Baghdad ALL NIGHT SHOTS Man crying, being comforted by others Car with damaged window, covered in dust Wrapped bodies in wooden coffins being carried from back of truck Wounded man lying on his side in hospital bed 10:52:35 (b) 3/28/03 Southern Iraq Burning oil fields British soldiers in trench View over makeshift bridge Various of soldiers firing mortars Blazing rockets in the air 3/28/03 Basra, Iraq MUTE Pan from smoke rising over city of Basra to bridge Various of British soldiers checking people and vehicles coming from Basra 10:53:15 (a) 3/28/03 Northern Iraq Wide shot of countryside Soldier with rifle at side of road Damaged building Various of pictures of Saddam Hussein and other debris in abandoned hut Man digging mine out of field Picture painted on side of building Pan from weapon lying on ground to building Close up of two soldiers sitting on ground Close up of ammunition being handed to soldier, pull out to soldiers 3/28/03 Harir Airstrip, Northern Iraq Trucks driving along road, helicopters in background Troops running up to jeep, get in jeep Pan across US paratroopers on foxholes Various of US paratroopers patrolling countryside 3/28/03 Baghdad SOUNDBITE (English) Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, Iraqi Information Minister: "It's a fair belief that we are winning this war and we will win the war. The final (result) will be an Iraqi victory." 10:54:49 (b) 3/28/03 Outside Basra, Iraq MUTE Various long shots of people on bridge Various of British soldiers taking suspicious people away for questioning British soldier inside armoured vehicle Soldier throws food to people from armoured vehicle British armoured vehicles facing towards bridge Destroyed Iraqi military hardware 10:55:18 (a) 3/29/03 Outside Basra, Iraq WS road leading to Basra with thick smoke rising MS of same Soldier sitting on tank with smoke rising behind Horse drawn cart going past (b) 3/29/03 Outside Basra, Iraq WS British soldiers frisking people in civilian clothes at checkpoint Various close-ups of people being searched 10:55:47 (a) 3/29/03 Northern Iraq Jeep with Kurdish soldiers drives past, zooms in Kurdish fighters standing on road Militiaman looking through binoculars Close-up of man carefully lifting mine away Landmine being carefully placed beside dozens of others 10:56:11 (b) 3/29/03 Near Basra, Iraq NIGHT SHOTS Coalition soldiers walk toward blaze Various tank on fire Gun on front of tank on fire 10:56:28 (a) 3/29/03 Rumeila Oil Field, Iraq Oil wells on fire Soldiers guarding wells Camels in front of oil well fires 10:56:51 (b) 3/29/03 Um Kayal, Southern Iraq +++PLEASE NOTE: shots 1 and 2 contain obscene language+++ Various of British marines kicking down fence gate and storming into house British troops taking occupants prisoner, making them sit on ground with hands on head Prisoners' hands being tied behind their backs Man facing wall, believed to be an Iraqi general, being guarded by coalition troops Troops kicking down back door to house Troops searching manhole Troops outside house, Iraqi women coming through doors, one of the women faints 10:57:37 (a) 3/29/03 Baghdad Wide shot view from the Information Ministry (camera on roof), then large explosion and debris falling Wide shot of covered market and people People walking in market next to metal frames of market stalls SOUNDBITE: (English) Mohammed Saeed Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister, "Our people are fighting those mercenaries and invaders. And they will be eliminated eventually. They have invaded our country, they are thrusting towards Baghdad, they are like a snake, now its length is more that 500 kilometres and we are going to cut this snake in pieces." 10:58:34 (l) 3/29/03 Near Najaf, Iraq / Qatar Various of 1st Brigade (3ID) vehicles encamped in the desert north of Najaf Soldier repairs the track of an armoured personnel carrier SOUNDBITE (English) Colonel Will Grimsley, Commander of the 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, "....soldiers at a routine checkpoint stopped a civilian car as we've been doing - working hard to separate the difference ... (AUDIO OVERLAYED) ... between these combatants, if you like, in civilians clothes and other things, who have been using a variety of vehicles - trying to separate them from the local civilian population here. They stopped the vehicle at the roadblock, that has it clearly marked in Arabic that it is a roadblock, the driver beckoned them a little bit closer and as the soldiers approached covered by fighting vehicles, the driver detonated a bomb killing himself and the four soldiers." 10:59:06 (a) 3/30/03 Harir, Northern Iraq Humvee driving down road Wide shot, US troops Soldier erecting barb-wire barricade Various, soldiers walking up road Various, US army vehicles around airfield Zoom in B-52 in the sky over Northern Iraq Various US military vehicles on the move 3/30/03 Near Kushea, Northern Iraq Various of Kurdish fighters in front of Peshmergas, yellow flag in bunker 11:00:08 (b) 3/29-30/03 Near Abu Al Khasib, Southern Iraq Various night vision shots of British Royal Marines' Brigade Reconnaissance Force (BRF) on road to Abu Al Khasib, UPSOUND gunfire and machine gun tracers visible Various night shots of heavy fire-fight between BRF and other coalition forces and Iraqi defenders at Abu Al Khasib, machine gun fire and large explosions visible, UPSOUND gunfire and explosions. 3/30/03 Abu Al Khasib, Southern Iraq Various shots of Royal Marines BRF troops patrolling Abu Al Khasib by day 3/30/03 Near Basra British Challenger tank firing shells at TV mast, after the last one is fired the tower begins to topple (a) 3/30/03 Central Iraq Various shots of US Marines Corps artillery firing 155mm M-198 towed howitzers 3/30/03 Umm Qasr, Iraq Various of cranes in port area Crowd of Iraqi civilians waiting to register for jobs British army doctor examining Iraqi civilian Iraqi civilians registering inside tent Wide shot of Saddam mural splashed with red paint 3/30/03 British road block on road south of Basra British Warrior armoured vehicle firing towards Iraqi positions (tracer fire can be seen) British Challenger tank moves forward British Challenger tank and Warrior armoured vehicle on road to Basra, (abandoned Iraqi tank in foreground) - AUDIO of several impacts of incoming shells, followed by large explosion as shell lands nearby Shot of field by road, several shells landing 3/30/03 North of Najaf, Iraq Various of US soldiers placing a large sign reading: (in Arabic) "Stop here - Do not go any further or we will shoot" Wide shot of burned-out vehicles at site of suicide bombing on Saturday Various shots of burned out trucks and cars at site Various shots of US troops searching site 11:03:50 (c) 3/29-30/03 Najaf area, Iraq Pull out from US Abrams tank to show Iraqi TV correspondent doing piece to camera in front of it Two books, including a bible with "Operation Enduring Freedom" written on the front Masked tribesmen with weapons singing next to captured equipment Wide shot, burning tank Various, tank in ditch Various, disabled tank 11:04:25 (a) 3/30/03 Doha, Qatar SOUNDBITE: (English) General Tommy Franks, US General in charge of coalition military operations in Iraq, "I don't know whether the leader of this regime is dead or alive. I don't know, perhaps someone knows, but I don't know. I will say this. I have not seen credible evidence over the last few days since we started this operation that this regime is being controlled from the top as we understand the top." 3/30/03 USS Truman, eastern Mediterranean E2C Hawkeye taking off 3/30/03 Fairford Air Force base, Britain B-52 bomber taking off 11:05:22 (b) 3/30-31/03 Abu al Khasib/Near Basra, Iraq Night vision: Vehicles on road, fire-fight in background fire-fight, troops on vehicles in foreground Two jeeps on road, flares from mortars falling in background UPSOUND (English) "Get them out now, get them all out." Tilt up of marine firing flare, mortar and gunshot into the air Marine behind sand bank Shot of Royal Marine firing automatic weapon Marine in foreground, manoeuvring tanks behind him Convoy of vehicles with flashes of light from fire-fight passing through shot Marine firing several flares Daylight shots: Tracking shot with ruins of houses, plumes of black smoke on landscape, passing a wrecked and burnt Iraqi tank by road A second wrecked tank by roadside Third tank behind a sand bank, smoking after fire Wide of several burnt vehicles, including a tank, one vehicle is still in flames Wide of same group of men walking, burning tank in background, several plumes of smoke Close up of hands in air Marines carrying injured Iraqi on stretcher to field ambulance British soldiers blow up building containing Iraqi weapons cache Daylight shots:British frontline, north west of Basra Various of British artillery pieces firing British soldier runs for cover in foxhole as Iraqi fire comes in Various of British artillery pieces firing Various of mobile British 155mm guns on the move 10:08:12 (a) 3/31/03 Mosul region, Iraq Camera follows the aircraft which drops two bombs, camera then follows bombs as they fall to ground and then explode creating large plume of smoke, camera then pans-around to a group of four civilians who are watching proceedings 3/31/03 Geiyr, Northern Iraq Kurdish soldiers standing in line on road Low shot of soldiers Close-up grenades on waist belt Various close shots of soldiers loading and cleaning rifles 3/31/03 Central Iraq US Marines in vehicle and on foot advancing along dusty road Marines running alongside brick wall of house, marines exit door of house Mid shot, marine kicks-in door of building, storms in followed by other marines UPSOUND (English): "We got somebody.. we got somebody." Marine aiming rifle, UPSOUND (English): "We got a baby in here" Very low light shot of person lying in a bed, putting on glasses Marines gathering Iraqis from farm buildings Various shots of marine binding hands of Iraqi prisoner 3/31/03 Baghdad Various explosions as US bombs land Tracer fire in sky Wide shot of bab Al Mudem telecommunications building with smoke rising Various of damaged building 3/31/03 Alkindi Hospital, Baghdad Paramedics unloading human remains, wrapped in blankets, from ambulance Body in morgue (reportedly killed in Monday afternoon's raids) Old man in bed with tube in nose and bandaged arm 11:10:29 (b) 3/31/03 Ark Royal Aircraft Carrier, undisclosed location in the Gulf Coffin carried on shoulders of servicemen across deck of carrier UPSOUND three gun salute 3/31/03 Zubayr, Iraq Close shot of soldiers boots walking on portrait of Saddam Hussein labelled "Please Wipe Feet" in marker pen British soldiers pushing back crowds trying to get to the water Soldier firing his gun in the air in order to calm the crowd down Water poured into bucket and handed out to woman Men struggling for water being dragged away by British soldiers UPSOUND (English) British soldiers, "No more, no more, sit down sit down." SOUNDBITE (English) Major Tony Bowron, British light infantry, "There are many people here and we are only 160 in my company trying to distribute food to thousands of people and they are hungry and thirsty." 3/31/03 Near Basra, Iraq Close shot of plastic explosive being wrapped in tape Various shots of engineers wrapping tape to legs of lighting pylon Tower being toppled as charges are blown Royal engineer bridge laying vehicle lowering pontoon into position over fractured oil pipeline British light tank driving across pontoon Engineer vehicle and abandoned Iraqi armoured vehicle Abandoned Iraqi armoured vehicle Engineers' bulldozer pushing Iraqi vehicle backwards 3/31/03 Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus in the Gulf Mid shot of Trooper Chris Finney, D Squadron, Household Cavalry, in hospital bed on board Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus Wide of Finney on bed with injured leg elevated SOUNDBITE (English) Trooper Chris Finney, D Squadron, Household Cavalry, "I seen his (the pilot's) face and all that, noticed it was an American plane. I sort of didn't want to believe it was because it's friendly, isn't it? And then, I was feeling scared and that, and signalling to him that we were in fact friendly and not Iraqis and all the rest of it. And then I just, there was just a sense of helplessness like there was nothing I could do about it." 11:12:38 (a) 4/1/03 Baghdad Various of men reading newspapers Al-Iraq newspaper with headline reading (Arabic) "The Iraqis are increasing in solidarity and willingness and are getting closer to a glorious victory" Various of street market Various of armed civilians from socialist party on guard in street-level bunker made from sandbags 11:12:58 (c) 4/1/03 Baghdad SOUNDBITE: (Arabic) General Shahin Yasin Muhammad al-Tikriti, "Victory is close and its signs have shown up through the confusion and frustration of the enemy, and we ask God to protect Iraq and our leader." 11:13:13 (b) 4/1/03 Near Basra, Iraq British troops approaching factory for a search Various of soldiers crouched with guns Various of troops breaking through doors of factory with sledge hammer Various of troops stacking seized guns 11:13:44 (c) 4/1/03 Baghdad SOUNDBITE: (Arabic) Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister, (Quoting verse of Koran) "In the name of God the coalition will lose and and go away (end of quote). " God is great, there is no God but Allah. The mujahedeen (all those fighting in Iraq), my dear sons of our great nation, dear men carrying the honour of our nation and arms and the honour of resistance. Peace be upon you while you're fighting the invaders, the enemies of freedom, the enemies of humanity, with your chest full of faith and your belief in God. These are special days, unlike any others. After seven hundred years of the history of our land, our glorious God is testing us again to match our words with our actions, God is great. Dear brothers it's been a very long time since our imams have agreed, despite their different points of views and now all are agreed that this invasion is an aggression against our religion, our land, our wealth and our existence. Thus, the jihad becomes an obligation to every Muslim. In order to seek martyrdom that will take you to heaven and the blessing of God. Dear brothers please take this opportunity, it has good deeds in defending our core beliefs. Any believer who fulfils his responsibility will be rewarded by God. And the wrath of God will be upon the invaders." 11:16:24 (a) 4/1/03 USS Truman, Mediterranean Sea Wide of F14 and F18 ready to be launched from USS Truman Flight deck Prowler taking off Deck crew signalling S-3B Viking landing 4/1/03 USS Ponce, At Sea Various views from below deck of mine sled preparing to be launched Mine sled is launched under tow of MH-53 helicopter Close up of mine sled with magnetic arms being lowered slowly into sea (b) HMS Splendid, Gulf - Recent High shot of submarine at surface Submariner looking at radar screen during launch of missile UPSOUND English), "Discharge in five seconds." Close up of radar screen UPSOUND: (English) "Discharge. Missile away." Missile seen launching out of ocean through periscope UPSOUND: (English) "Missile seen to fly!" Periscope being raised, submariner looking through it 11:17:18 (a) 4/1/03 Kifri, Iraq Three Iraqi soldiers walking near fortification, massive explosion erupts behind wall, shock waves sweep out Skyline of town, explosion in distance on frontline Iraqi positions Another explosion beyond mosque 4/1/03 Chamchamal Various of Peshmerga fighters inspecting confiscated weapons Peshmergas loading weapon onto truck SOUNDBITE (Kurdish) Mamrostam, PUK commander (one name only - nickname), "If the Americans ask us for support or help we will be proud to help them and we will co-operate with them." 4/1/03 Central Iraq US Marines firing on Iraqi positions US Marines loading gun Gun fires US Marines loading gun Gun in air 4/2/03 Baghdad Yemeni volunteers calling for Jihad and chanting loyalty to Saddam Hussein Tracer fire over top of city Plume of explosion illuminated More tracer fire (c) Date and location unknown Various of Saddam meeting with cabinet 11:19:23 (b) 4/3/03 Abu Al Khassib, Iraq Marine kicks down door of room in police station Marine shoots lock of cupboard Marine smashes Saddam portrait Interior of cell with pillow and mattress (torture room) Hook hanging from ceiling in separate room Electricity cable leading into room Two tyres in room, allegedly used by torturer as protection against electric shocks Pile of ID cards 4/3/03 Umm Qasr, Iraq Marines enter house, walk up stairs Marine handles captured Iraqis, believed to be secret police Iraqi informer dressed as Marine surveys captured Iraqis Iraqis, believed to be secret police, are taken away Iraqi prisoners sitting cross legged, hands tied behind their backs and hooded Hovercraft sailing with Union Jack flag blowing in the wind Soldier pointing gun as armed hovercraft sails Hovercraft sails past abandoned Iraqi vessels Hovercraft comes out of water onto land 4/3/03 Najaf, Iraq MS US military convoy marching through Najaf 11:21:07 (a) 4/2/03 Baghdad Various shots of damaged telecommunications centre SOUNDBITE: (English) Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraqi Information Minister, "....They started throwing booby traps on the Iraqi villages and townships. Do you know what are the booby traps? Pens and pencils. Booby traps. They started throwing pencils but they are booby traps"..... 11:21:54 (b) 4/2/03 Rumeila Oil Fields Soldiers from 1st Battalion of Royal Irish Regiment with helicopter landing Soldier get on board helicopter Helicopter cockpit Soldiers on board with another chopper hovering behind Helicopter in the sky Soldier patrolling from the back of helicopter Various of helicopter on patrol 11:22:18 (a) 4/2/03 Central Iraq MS convoy of tanks SS tank passing Reverse shot of convoy Soldier on tank turret passing WS Convoy Soldier on tank turret passing Parked armoured vehicle, tank passing WS smoke on horizon, vehicle passing 11:22:57 (c) Date and location unknown Various of Saddam with Ba'ath party officials 11:23:38 (a) 4/3/03 Baghdad Airport Various exterior shots of Saddam International Airport. Various Interior of empty airport Wide pan of empty runway 11:24:29 (b) 4/3/03 Near Basra Mid shot burnt out Iraqi truck and artillery piece Wide shot fires on the horizon Mid shot British tank on the move Wide shot fires on the horizon Wide shot town burning Mid shot cart travelling down road 4/3/03 Abu Zubayr Mid shot British armoured vehicles with "retribution" sign on the front 11:25:25 (a) 4/3/03 30 km S of Baghdad Burning tank by roadside, black smoke Various of heavy artillery being fired as US Marines advance to Tigris River Various of burned out vehicles along the road after crossing the Tigris River 11:26:08 (h) 4/1/03 Southern Iraq MUTE Jessica Lynch being carried down stairs on stretcher by commandos Pan around room where she was found, with Saddam Hussein poster Low shot of undercarriage as Lynch carried onto plane View from plane as it leaves 11:26:52 END TAPE ********************************* Sources (a) APTN (b) Pool (c) Iraqi TV (d) US Navy (e) Turkish Parliament TV (f) AP Photos (g) US Army and Airforce Hometown News Service (h) DoD (i) Australian Department of Defence (j) RAF (k) MoD (l) APTN/Pool YY
DN-LB-804 Beta SP
DOCUMENTARIES
PRES. LYNDON JOHNSON TALKS TO INTERNAL REVENUE OFFICIALS
ORIG. NEG. 1200 FT. SOF MAG MS OF PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON TALKING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES PLANE THAT WAS SHOT DOWN OVER BERLIN. HE SAYS IT DID NOT HAVE TO BE SHOT DOWN. HE SAYS THE UNITED STATES IS DOING WHAT IS RIGHT. HE ALSO SPEAKS ABOUT LIBRARIES. THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE. MS HE SIGNS THE CONGRESSIONAL ACT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION OF LIBRARIES. THIS WILL HELP APPROXIMATELY 38,000,000 PEOPLE. MS PRESIDENT JOHNSON HANDING OUT PENS. MS SECRETARY OF TREASURY, DOUGLAS DILLON, INTRODUCES PRESIDENT JOHNSON TO MEMBER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. MS PRESIDENT JOHNSON SPEAKS TO THEM ON VARIED SUBJECTS. LS WHITE HOUSE. LBJ: SECRETARY DILLON AND MR. CAPLIN. I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOUR COMING HERE TODAY AND VISITING IN YOUR HOUSE. I AM GRATEFUL FOR THAT FINE INTRODUCTION. I AM GLAD TO TALK WITH THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ADMINISTER OUR TAX SYSTEM. AS A TAXPAYER I AM INTERESTED IN HOW WELL YOU DO THIS JOB. I DON'T SUPPOSE WE WILL EVER GET TO THE POINT WHERE PEOPLE ARE EVER PLEASED TO PAY TAXES, BUT WE OWE IT TO THEM TO SEE THAT THE COLLECTION IS DONE AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE, AS COURTEOUSLY AS POSSIBLE, AND ALWAYS HONESTLY. TAXPAYERS ARE PEOPLE. THEY ARE YOU AND ME AND MILLIONS OF OUR FELLOW CITIZENS. I THINK WE CONSTANTLY HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH THE TAXPAYERS WHAT WE SHOULD BEAR IN MIND IN DEALING WITH ALL OF THE 190 MILLION PEOPLE THAT MAKE UP THIS COUNTRY AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE ALL EQUAL ON ELECTION DAY. AFTER ALL, THE DECISION OF THE MANY IS MUCH TO BE PREFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE FEW, AS THOMAS JEFFERSON SAID, AND THE DECISION OF THE MANY DETERMINES THE LEADERS OF OUR SYSTEM, SO EVERY MAN IS A KING IN THE BALLOT BOX AND THEREFORE WE MUST REALIZE WE ARE HIS SERVANTS AND NOT HIS MASTERS. TAXPAYERS MUST BE TREATED WITH COURTESY. THEY HAVE A RIGHT UNDER OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM TO BE TREATED REASONABLY AND THEY HAVE EVERY REASON TO EXPECT FROM THE MEN OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE TOTAL INTEGRITY, AND INTEGRITY IN TAX ADMINISTRATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED, BUT THE PRICE OF INTEGRITY IS ETERNAL VIGILANCE. SO I AM GOING TO ASK EACH OF YOU TO EXERCISE SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND I AM GOING TO COUNT ON YOU GENTLEMEN NEVER TO LET THAT VIGILANCE SAG. BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL IN THE CIVIL SERVICE IT MEANS YOU ARE ALL PROFESSIONAL MANAGERS. AS MANAGERS I KNOW YOU SHARE MY INTEREST IN ECONOMY AND FRUGALITY. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE PINCH PENNIES. IT DOES MEAN THAT WE WAR ON WASTE. IS IT WRONG TO EXPECT A DOLLAR'S VALUE FROM EACH DOLLAR SPENT? IN THIS GOVERNMENT OUR GOALS ARE VERY SIMPLE. WE INTEND UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION TO SEE THAT WE HAVE A STRONG COUNTRY, THAT WE ARE MILITARILY SECURE, THAT WE HAVE THE POWER AND THE MIGHT AND THE DETERMINATION TO DEFEND AMERICA ANY TIME, ANY PLACE, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. IN ORDER TO DO THAT WE MUST BE EQUALLY SURE THAT WE NOT ONLY HAVE A STRONG NATION BUT THAT WE HAVE A SOLVENT NATION. SOLVENCY WILL REQUIRE APPLICATION OF OUR BEST TALENTS EVERY DAY. WE HAVE A BUDGET THIS YEAR ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT TO THE BUDGET LAST YEAR. WE ALL KNOW IN OUR PERSONAL LIVING THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO KEEP EXPENSES DOWN NEXT YEAR TO WHAT THEY WERE LAST YEAR, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO DO THAT IN THIS GOVERNMENT. PRESIDENT KENNEDY WILL HAVE SPENT ABOUT $98,400 MILLION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET FOR THIS LAST YEAR AND WE HAVE RECOMMENDED $97,900 MILLION, OR WITHIN HALF OF 1 PERCENT OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT RECOMMENDED. IF WE HAD CONTINUED THE NEXT YEAR AS WE HAD THE LAST 2 YEARS, WE WOULD HAVE ADDED $5 BILLION TO THAT BUDGET BECAUSE OF INCREASED POPULATION, UNFILLED NEEDS, INCREASED DEMANDS. IT TOOK US 40 DAYS AND NIGHTS TO PARE AND PRUNE. THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND OTHER LEADERS IN OUR GOVERNMENT WERE EXTREMELY COOPERATIVE. WE SENT A BUDGET TO THE CONGRESS WHICH I THINK MADE POSSIBLE OUR REPORTING THE TAX BILL AND FINALLY PASSING IT IN THE SENATE. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A FRUGAL ADMINISTRATION, WE ARE GOING TO BE A PROGRESSIVE ADMINISTRATION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE WASTEFUL IN ORDER TO BE ENLIGHTENED OR TO BE PROGRESSIVE. MY MOTHER WAS THE MOST LIBERAL PERSON THAT I THINK I EVER KNEW, YET SHE ALWAYS HAD SOME PIN MONEY HID UNDER THE PILLOW TO TAKE CARE OF OUR NEEDS IN TIME OF DISTRESS. I THINK THAT WE MUST HAVE NOT JUST A WAR ON POVERTY BUT WE MUST HAVE A WAR ON WASTE. I AM GLAD THAT THE ATMOSPHERE AND THE THINKING AMONG THE LEADERSHIP IN THIS GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO BRING THAT ABOUT. NOW, IF GOVERNMENT IS TO SERVE ANY PURPOSE IT IS TO DO FOR OTHERS WHAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO DO FOR THEMSELVES. IF EACH OF US COULD DEFEND OUR COUNTRY IN TIME OF WAR WE WOULD NOT NEED A DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. IF EACH OF US COULD COLLECT OUR OWN TAXES AND TAKE CARE OF ALL THE EXPENDITURES NECESSARY FOR ROADS AND EDUCATION AND SO FORTH, WE WOULD NOT NEED A TREASURY DEPARTMENT OR AN INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BUT WE CAN'T DO THOSE THINGS INDIVIDUALLY SO WE MUST DO THEM COLLECTIVELY IN GOVERNMENT. ASIDE FROM BEING STRONG AND ASIDE FROM BEING SOLVENT, THIS GOVERNMENT MUST ALWAYS BE COMPASSIONATE. WE MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT AS I SAID BEFORE, WE ARE THE SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT TALKED WITH GREAT ELOQUENCE ABOUT THE THIRD OF OUR NATION THAT WAS ILL HOUSED AND ILL FED AND ILL CLAD. THAT WAS 30 YEARS AGO. BY GREAT DEDICATION OF SELFLESS MEN WE BROUGHT THAT ONE-THIRD THAT WAS ILL CLAD AND ILL FED AND ILL HOUSED DOWN TO ONE-FIFTH THAT IS NOW ILL CLAD, AND ILL FED, AND ILL HOUSED. IN OUR BUDGET THIS YEAR, WE WILL APPORTION APPROXIMATELY A BILLION DOLLARS TO TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO REDUCE THAT ONE-FIFTH TO MAYBE ONE-SIXTH OR ONE-SEVENTH OR ONE-EIGHTH OR ONE-TENTH BECAUSE THAT IS A WORTHY GOAL, FOLLOWING THE GOLDEN RULE, "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU." IMAGINE WHAT GOVERNMENT WOULD MEAN TO YOU THAT ATTACKED THE POVERTY PROGRAM IF YOUR INCOME WAS AMONG THE 20 PERCENT THAT EARNS LESS THAN $3,000 PER YEAR. THE BEST WAY FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE OTHER FELLOW FEELS IS TO PUT YOURSELF IN HIS PLACE FOR A WHILE AND SEE HOW YOU WOULD FEEL UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. THAT IS NOT ONLY TRUE OF THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED FROM IGNORANCE AND POVERTY AND DISEASE AND ILLITERACY BUT THAT IS TRUE ALSO OF THOSE WHO HAVE SUFFERED FROM DISCRIMINATION-DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS, DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING, DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS. I TELL THIS STORY BECAUSE IT IS A RATHER TOUCHING PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HAD. ONE OF THE GREAT LADIES THAT I HAVE KNOWN IS KIND OF CHIEF OF STAFF OF OUR OPERATION, OUR HOUSE. SHE HAS BEEN WITH US 20 YEARS, SHE IS A COLLEGE GRADUATE, BUT WHEN SHE COMES FROM TEXAS TO WASHINGTON SHE NEVER KNOWS WHERE SHE CAN GET A CUP OF COFFEE. SHE NEVER KNOWS WHEN SHE CAN GO TO A BATHROOM. SHE HAS TO TAKE 3 OR 4 HOURS OUT TO GO ACROSS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS TO LOCATE THE PLACE WHERE SHE CAN SIT DOWN AND BUY A MEAL. YOU WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN TO YOUR WIFE OR TO YOUR MOTHER OR TO YOUR SISTER, BUT SOMEHOW OR OTHER YOU TAKE IT FOR GRANTED WHEN IT HAPPENS TO SOMEONE WAY OFF THERE. SO THE TIME HAS COME IN OUR NATIONAL LIFE WHEN WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE OUR BILL OF RIGHTS REAL, WHEN WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE OUR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE COME TRUE, WHEN WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE OUR CONSTITUTION A LIVING DOCUMENT. WE HAVE GOT TO DO UNTO OTHERS AS WE WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO US. MR. CAPLIN TOUCHED ON THAT SUBJECT, SO I ASK YOU WHEN YOU GO BACK WITH THE GOOD FORTUNE THAT WILL BE YOURS TO BE PUBLIC SERVANTS, DEDICATED, TRUSTED MEN OF INTEGRITY, THAT FIRST OF ALL YOU BE SURE THAT YOU GET A DOLLAR'S WORTH OF VALUE FOR EVERY DOLLAR YOU SPEND, AND DON'T TELL ME YOU DO BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IN YOUR OWN SHOPS A GOOD MANY PEOPLE IN THE HALLS WHEN THEY COULD HAVE BEEN WORKING. AND I SAW IT IN MY OWN SHOP AS I CAME OVER HERE TODAY. SO YOU CAN DO BETTER. I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE HELD TO THIS BUT THE LIGHT BILL ON THE WHITE HOUSE A FEW MONTHS AGO WAS $5,000 A MONTH. THIS MONTH IT IS $3,000. A LOT OF CLOSETS THAT HAD LIGHTS BURNING IN THEM ALL DAY LONG AND A LOT OF STAIRWAYS THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T USE THAT HAD LIGHTS BURNING, A LOT OF ROOMS IN HERE WHERE THE CHANDELIERS WERE GOING FULL TIME WHEN NO ONE WAS IN HERE, THEY WERE ALL USED, BUT WHEN PEOPLE GOT ECONOMY CONSCIOUS AND JUST STARTED WATCHING THINGS LIKE WE USED TO ON THE REA LINE WHEN WE HAD A MINIMUM BILL OF $2.50 A MONTH AND WE NEVER WANTED TO GO OVER THE MINIMUM. THINGS CAN BE REDUCED. IT HAS NOT ALL BEEN DUE TO OUR EFFORTS. SOME OF IT CAME ABOUT FOR OTHER REASONS, BUT WE HOPE THAT NEXT MONTH IT WILL COME DOWN ANOTHER $500 A MONTH. THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRY, I THINK, WILL REALLY APPRECIATE WHEN THEY REALIZE YOU ARE SAVING $2500 A MONTH ON ELECTRICITY IN THE HOUSE IN WHICH YOU LIVE. YOU GO BACK HOME AND SEE HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY YOU CAN SAVE IN THE BUILDING IN WHICH YOU WORK. SEE HOW MANY LIGHTS YOU LEAVE ON WHEN YOU GO OUT AT NIGHT. SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU HAVE THAT ARE NOT LIVING UP TO THE MOST RIGID STANDARDS. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID AND THOUGHT THAT IF I COULD HAVE A SON I WOULD LIKE FOR HIM TO BE A PREACHER OR A TEACHER OR A PUBLIC SERVANT BECAUSE I HAVE OBSERVED THAT THERE COMES TO THOSE PROFESSIONS A SENSE OF SATISFACTION OUT OF DOING A JOB THAT YOU NEVER GET FROM A PAYCHECK. MOST OF YOU MEN WOULD IN PRIVATE LIFE DRAW SEVERAL TIMES THE SALARY THAT YOU DRAW NOW. HERE IS SECRETARY DILLON WHO HAS EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD THAT A MAN COULD WANT. HE HAS WEALTH, HE HAS PRESTIGE AND HE HAS A LOVELY WIFE AND A WONDERFUL REPUTATION, BUT HIS GREAT SATISFACTION COMES FROM WORKING HERE IN WASHINGTON AND LEADING A GROUP LIKE YOU, AND SPENDING SEVERAL TIMES MORE PER YEAR THAN HE EARNS IN HIS SALARY, TRYING TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE. YOU ARE VERY FORTUNATE TO BE ONE OF THOSE MEN WHO IS NOT A PREACHER OR TEACHER BUT A PUBLIC SERVANT, BECAUSE YOU SERVE THE GREATEST GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD. YOU SERVE THE LEADER OF THE WORLD, THE 113 NATIONS, AND YOURS IS OUTSTANDING. THERE ARE ONLY SIX OF THEM THAT HAVE A PER CAPITA INCOME OF AS MUCH AS $80 A MONTH. YOURS HAS OVER $200 A MONTH. HOW LONG THIS NATION WILL ENDURE AND SURVIVE AND MEET THE TRIALS OF LEADERSHIP WILL DEPEND LARGELY ON THE QUALITY OF ITS PUBLIC SERVANTS, THEIR DEDICATION, THEIR HONESTY, THEIR INTEGRITY, THEIR ENLIGHTENMENT, THEIR SELFLESSNESS, THEIR WILLINGNESS TO DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO US. WE HAVE PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD. WE ARE LIVING IN A FRUSTRATING PERIOD, AN EXCITING PERIOD, A DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD. I HAVE SEEN TIMES WHEN THE SKIES WERE GRAYER. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ON OUR HANDS THIS MORNING A MISSILE CRISIS IN CUBA. WE DON'T HAVE LAOS; WE DON'T HAVE THE CONFERENCE IN VIENNA THAT WE FACED THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S ADMINISTRATION--THE BAY OF PIGS--ALL OF THOSE WERE MAJOR PROBLEMS. RELATIVELY SPEAKING, WE DON'T HAVE THE PROBLEM THAT MR. KHRUSHCHEV HAS WITH COMMUNIST CHINA, 800 MILLION PEOPLE THERE AND THEY ARE SAYING UGLY THINGS ABOUT EACH OTHER. AND 800 MILLION IS A SIZABLE NUMBER. WHEN THEY FALL OUT AMONG THEMSELVES IT IS SOMETHING THAT MUST CONCERN BOTH OF THEM. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PANAMA--THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A DISPUTE WITH ANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS. OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN MADE A MISTAKE IN RAISING THE UNITED STATES FLAG WITHOUT RAISING THE PANAMANIAN FLAG, BUT THAT DOES NOT WARRANT OR JUSTIFY SHOOTING OUR SOLDIERS OR INVADING THE ZONE. OUR PLANE WAS OFF COURSE OVER BERLIN AND LOST ITS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM VERY LIKELY, AND WAS SHOT DOWN. IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THAT TERRITORY. IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IF IT HAD BEEN ABLE TO FOLLOW OUR RADAR INSTRUCTIONS BUT IT LOST ITS COMMUNICATIONS; BUT WE DON'T THINK THAT THEY WERE JUSTIFIED IN SHOOTING IT DOWN. THE CUBAN FISHERMEN GOT IN OUR WATERS AND THEY WERE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. THAT IS WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS WHEN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT DEVELOP. WE ARE SORRY THAT THEY WERE IN OUR WATERS BUT WE DON'T THINK THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN CUTTING OFF OUR WATER AND VIOLATING OUR CONTRACT, BUT SINCE THEY DID IT, WE TOLD THEM WE WILL 'PROVIDE OUR OWN WATER AND WE WILL MAKE THAT BASE SELF-SUFFICIENT AND THAT IS WHAT WE PROPOSE TO DO. BUT TODAY THE OAS COMMITTEE IS IN PANAMA. THE CUBAN SITUATION IS BEING WORKED OUT. WE HAVE PROBLEMS BETWEEN OUR NATO ALLIES WITH THE GREEKS AND THE TURKS BUT SECRETARY BALL IS TRYING TO EVOLVE A SOLUTION THAT WILL KEEP THEM FROM FIGHTING EACH OTHER. IN VIET-NAM, WE HAVE A NEW GOVERNMENT. IT IS THE SECOND NEW GOVERNMENT THAT THEY HAVE HAD IN RECENT MONTHS. IN NATO ALONE IN THE LAST YEAR, OUT OF 15 COUNTRIES, 10 OF THEM HAVE HAD NEW GOVERNMENTS. OF THE 113 NATIONS IN THE WORLD, 50 OF THEM HAVE HAD NEW GOVERNMENTS IN THE LAST 3 YEARS. WE EXPECT THOSE THINGS, AND WE ARE NOT THE LAST WORD AND WE CANNOT EXPECT TO MASH A BUTTON AND HAVE OUR WISHES CARRIED OUT ALL OVER THIS GLOBE. ALL WE CAN DO IS EXPECT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT IS HONORABLE, WHAT IS ENLIGHTENED, AND THAT WE ARE DOING. WE ARE NOT PULLING OUT OF SOUTHEAST ASIA BECAUSE WE ARE NOT WILLING TO YIELD THAT PART OF THE WORLD TO THE ENVELOPMENT OF COMMUNISM. WE ARE PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO SAVE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SAVE THEMSELVES. NOW ALL OF THESE DISTRESS, AND FROM TIME TO TIME YOU WILL HEAR ALARMISTS AND PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO JUMP ON THEIR GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO CRITICIZE, PEOPLE WHO FIND IT QUITE IMPOSSIBLE TO BE AFFIRMATIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE. THEY WILL JOIN WITH SOME OF OUR OPPONENTS AND THEY WILL BE ALMOST AS MUCH OF A PROBLEM AS SOME OF OUR OTHER ENEMIES. BUT THAT IS NO REASON FOR US TO LOSE HOPE OR TO BE CONCERNED. THE BEST WAY TO TREAT THEM IS TO JUST "GOD FORGIVE THEM, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO." WHEN I BECAME MAJORITY LEADER, WHEN PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WAS PRESIDENT, I TOOK THE POSITION THAT POLITICS STOPPED AT THE WATER'S EDGE--WE HAD BUT ONE PRESIDENT AND ONE COMMANDER IN CHIEF--THAT I WOULD SUPPORT HIS POLICIES AND GIVE HIM STRENGTH AND COMFORT, AND THAT I WOULD NOT BE ALIGNING MYSELF WITH ANY ENEMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN CRITICIZING HIM. A GREAT MANY OF THE TIMES I SUPPORTED HIM WHEN HIS OWN LEADERSHIP DID NOT SUPPORT HIM, BUT WE MADE DEMOCRACY WORK WITH A DIVIDED GOVERNMENT BECAUSE HE PUT HIS COUNTRY FIRST, AND WE TRIED TO DO LIKEWISE. SO I ASK YOU TO BE OF STRONG HEART, TO REALIZE HOW FORTUNATE AND HOW BLESSED YOU ARE THAT YOU ARE A PART OF AMERICA; THAT YOU HAVE AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP. MY PLANE HAS LANDED IN MANY CONTINENTS, TOUCHED DOWN IN MORE THAN 30 COUNTRIES IN THE LAST 3 YEARS. THE WHEELS HAVE NEVER STOPPED AND THE DOOR HAS NEVER OPENED AND I HAVE NEVER LOOKED UPON ANY FACES THAT I DIDN'T THINK WOULD LIKE TO TRADE CITIZENSHIP WITH ME. I AM VERY THANKFUL THAT I HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE TO LIVE IN AMERICA. ONE OF THE REASONS IT IS A GOOD FORTUNE TO LIVE IN AMERICA IS BECAUSE MEN LIKE YOU MAKE THE SACRIFICES YOU DO. I FEEL IN TALKING TO YOU THAT I AM TALKING TO ONE OF MY VERY OWN, BECAUSE I HAVE SPENT 32 YEARS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN A MAN THAT I REALLY THOUGHT WENT INTO THE SERVICE TO DO WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS WRONG. BUT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF THEM THAT DID WRONG AFTER THEY GOT IN BECAUSE OF THEIR LACK OF LEADERSHIP, BECAUSE OF THEIR LACK OF SENSITIVITY, BECAUSE OF THEIR LACK OF CONSCIOUSNESS, BECAUSE THEY DID WASTE TIME AND WASTE EFFORT AND BRING ABOUT UNNECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS. SO, THESE CONFERENCES ARE GOOD FOR YOU. IT IS WONDERFUL FOR YOU TO COME HERE AND SEE THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT, THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL, THE JEFFERSON MEMORIAL, AND THE HOUSE THAT BELONGS TO ALL OF YOU PEOPLE, BECAUSE IT IS A SYMBOL OF ALL THAT MADE AMERICA GREAT AND THAT HAS MADE US PROUD. SINCE WORLD WAR II WE HAVE SPENT A HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS TRYING TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE. WHEN I DROVE DOWN THE STREETS OF ROME, PEOPLE RAN OUT AND STOPPED MY CAR AND SAID, "LOOK AT THAT SKYLINE, THAT INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY BACK THERE. EXCEPT FOR THE HELP OF AMERICANS, WE WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT. NEVER BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION HAD THE VICTORS TREATED THE VANQUISHED AS YOU HAVE TREATED US, AND WE WANT YOU TO GO BACK AND THANK AMERICANS." SO, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU HEAR AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT SOME OF THE BELLYACHERS SAY, WE ARE A MUCH BELOVED PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. WE ARE RESPECTED AND WE APPRECIATE IT. WE WILL HAVE DIFFERENCES. MEN OF DIFFERENT ANCESTRIES, MEN OF DIFFERENT TONGUES, MEN OF DIFFERENT COLORS, MEN OF DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS, MEN OF DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIES DO NOT SEE EVERYTHING ALIKE. EVEN IN OUR OWN COUNTRY WE DO NOT SEE EVERYTHING ALIKE. IF WE DID, WE WOULD ALL WANT THE SAME WIFE-AND THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM, WOULDN'T IT! WE MUST MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR THE OTHER FELLOW. A GOOD WAY TO TREAT HIM IS JUST TO ASSUME THAT HE WANTS TO DO FOR HIS OWN PEOPLE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO FOR YOUR OWN. TRY TO FIND AN AREA OF AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF AN AREA OF DISAGREEMENT. WE HAVE LAID DOWN OUR PROPOSALS FOR DISARMAMENT IN GENEVA. WE HAVE SAID TO EVERY THINKING MAN IN THIS GOVERNMENT, WE WANT TO FOLLOW THE ROAD OF PEACE. WE ARE GOING TO YEARN FOR IT--NOT JUST YEARN-WE ARE GOING TO SEARCH FOR IT. WE KNOW THAT MR. KHRUSHCHEV CAN KILL A HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE IN WESTERN EUROPE IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. AND HE CAN KILL A HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE MORE OR LESS IN THIS COUNTRY IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. AND WE CAN KILL A HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE IN RUSSIA, IN THE SOVIET UNION, IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. THAT IS NOT GREAT STATESMANSHIP. WHAT WE HAVE GOT TO DO IS BE PREPARED TO DEFEND OURSELVES, BUT ALSO BE PREPARED TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THESE MANY PROBLEMS. I HAVE SAT IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL WITH YOUR SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, AND I COULDN'T LET THIS MEETING GO BY WITHOUT TELLING YOU OF THE GREAT CONFIDENCE I HAVE IN HIM, THE GREAT FAITH I HAVE IN HIM, AND THE GREAT FEELING OF SECURITY THAT I HAVE WHEN HE RISES TO SPEAK AND GIVES HIS INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. HE IS A MAN WHO PUTS HIS COUNTRY FIRST. SOMEBODY CALLED HIM A REPUBLICAN. I THINK THAT IS ABOUT THE WORST THING I EVER HEARD SAID ABOUT HIM. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE REPUBLICANS--AND WE ARE IN THIS COUNTRY; AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM, WE ARE PROUD OF IT--I LIKE TO HAVE REPUBLICANS LIKE DOUG DILLON. I LIKE THEIR OWN KIND BECAUSE HE IS THE KIND THAT HAS STRONG CONVICTIONS AND EXPRESSES THEM. BUT HE IS A FREE MAN FIRST, AN AMERICAN SECOND, A PUBLIC SERVANT THIRD, AND A REPUBLICAN FOURTH--IN THAT ORDER. I THINK WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE YOUR COMMISSIONER HERE. I HAVE BEEN CHECKED LATELY, SO I AM UP TO DATE AND I CAN BE COMPLIMENTARY. I WANT TO SAY THAT I NEVER HAVE KNOWN A MORE DEDICATED PERSON OR A MORE ENLIGHTENED ONE, AND I THINK HE HAS DONE GREAT THINGS FOR THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. I KNOW THAT HE HAS GOT HIS EYE OVER EVERY ONE OF YOUR SHOULDERS, AND HE IS GOING TO MAKE YOU DO BETTER BECAUSE AMERICA MUST DO BETTER. BUT WE CAN'T BE SATISFIED WITH YESTERDAY. TOMORROW IS GOING TO BE A BETTER WORLD FOR ALL OF OUR PEOPLE, BETTER FOR ALL OF OUR CHILDREN THAN IT WAS FOR US, AND YOU ARE GOING TO HELP MAKE IT SO. YOU ARE WELCOME IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WE THANK YOU FOR COMING. I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF TALKING TO YOU. NOTE: THE PRESIDENT SPOKE IN THE EAST ROOM AT THE WHITE HOUSE. HIS OPENING WORDS REFERRED TO DOUGLAS DILLON, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, AND MOTTIMER M. CAPLIN, COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, WHO MADE BRIEF INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. LATER THE PRESIDENT REFERRED TO GEORGE W. BALL, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE, WHO HAD LEFT FOR EUROPE ON FEBRUARY 8 FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH BRITISH, GREEK, AND TURKISH OFFICIALS ON THE CYPRUS PROBLEM. CI: GEOGRAPHIC - WASHINGTON, D. C. PERSONALITIES - JOHNSON, LYNDON B. PERSONALITIES: DILLON, DOUGLAS. SPEECHES - SUBJECT PLANE SHOT DOWN OVER BERLIN. GOVERNMENT - PACTS CONGRESSIONAL ACT FOR CONSTRUCTION & RENO OF LIBRARIES. ORGANIZATIONS - GOVT. , INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
PA-0514 Digibeta; PA-1022 1 inch; PA-1023 1 inch
Radiation Safety in Nuclear Energy Exploration
ATC-1 Beta SP
The Atomic Cafe
PETE BUTTIGIEG LAS VEGAS NV TOWN HALL ABC 2020
TVU 21 PETE BUTTIGIEG LAS VEGAS NV TOWN HALL ABC UNI 122019 2020 LAS VEGAS, Nevada - Mayor Pete Buttigieg is feeling the pressure of being one of the leading candidates in the Democratic race for president right now. During tonight's town hall with members of Las Vegas' Asian Pacific Islander American (APIA) community, Buttigieg said sometimes it feels like he's "getting punched in the face," and acknowledged criticism from his own party. "And now of all times, is the moment that we've got to stay after it, precisely because it's so exhausting, I get it. You go on Twitter, and you go on the news and it feels like getting punched in the face all the time, especially when you actually run, let me tell you, (LAUGHS) I mean, between the absurdity that I feel like we're getting from the other side to the friendly fire that I get from my own competitors where we more or less have the same values, we're just competing. Right? It's tough out there." [221825] During a gaggle with reporters after the event, Buttigieg was asked about that comment and said it will only continue as the race goes on. "Well I think as the race gets more competitive for better or for worse, we can expect more of that, but the most important thing is to continue driving our message about what America is going to need, why I believe I would be the best nominee to defeat Donald Trump, but also critically the best president for the era that's got to come afterwards. And we'll continue to defend our message, our campaign, and my record." [223240] Asked if he thought the exchanges between him and the senators on stage during Thursday night's debate were fair, Buttigieg didn't give a direct answer, just once again bringing up "purity tests." "I certainly think that now's not a time for these kinds of purity tests to distract them from what it is we're all trying to do. And my view, especially on the question of how to gather resources, is that we need everybody that we can in this fight and in this struggle. And at the same time, I get that a debate is a place for us to hash out these differences and a fair game for us to each have to stand and defend what we believe." [223306] As for the town hall - before Buttigieg even sat down, things started off with a laugh when one person shouted out that his outfit was similar to Rep. Jim Jordan. "Thankfully, that is literally the only thing we will ever have in common," Buttigieg said. [213443] The conversation seemed to really focus on a need for all communities in the United States to feel like they're included. "Our country is at its best when it builds a sense of belonging, but right now the message is going out to so many people that you don't belong, people are being told, because of their faith, because of where they come from, because of what language they speak at home, because of their sexuality, whatever it is, in different ways, for different people, people are getting the message that you don't belong," Buttigieg said. "In order for America to succeed, it has to belong to all of us, and that's one of the reasons why it is so important to me to engage the APIA community, as it has been important in the life of our own city, where the contributions of generations of people have come, including so many who came one generation ago, largely from Vietnam and Cambodia, as well as people who came from many, many Asian communities who are part of the life of our academic sector, as well as our workforce, but also our campaign, where I'm proud that leadership roles, from our director of policy to our national finance investment chair are held by Asian women who are doing extraordinary work in our campaign." [214030] Asked if he would repeal President Trump's travel ban, Buttigieg said yes, but noted that it's being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. "The travel ban, in my opinion is unconstitutional, it goes against American values, and it is clearly discriminatory, and I'm glad you raised it you're right here's something that, because there's a new outrage every day, we forget that the older outrageous haven't gone away, and that includes the Islamophobia in general and the travel ban." [220320] On higher-education, the mayor made sure to include that college tuition will not be free for the wealthiest Americans. "What I've proposed is a federal investment that would fund a state federal partnership to ensure that college is affordable for everyone, and actually can make public college tuition free for most for families, earning $100,000 or less. That's about 80% of Americans we would be able to make public college including community college tuition free." [214242] A woman in the audience said she liked the mayor's stump line of "paying teachers more like doctors and honoring them more like soldiers," to which Buttigieg found a chance to pitch his "education access core" proposal. "The idea would be to create a network of some of the most highly rated existing teacher qualification programs universities and colleges and programs around the country that train teachers and give them degrees to give them a designation of being a gold standard, that if you participate in this program, you'll have a license that's portable, that you can take to any school district in the country." [215403] TVU 21 PETE BUTTIGIEG LAS VEGAS NV TOWN HALL ABC UNI 122019 2020 GAGGLE 223122 Q: So you obviously like to cater to a lot of diverse communities, so how do you think events like this will help you in the polls later on? I mean in small, small events like this. 223132 BUTG>> Well I think it's about relationships. So you know there, there are some things that you can't accomplish in a 1000 person rally or town hall, that I have a more of a sense of back and forth, understanding what's on people's minds, and that's one of the reasons why tonight's discussion with the API community here was so important. We'll be having more conversations tomorrow with African American and Latino Nevadans and looking forward to what we can learn there. 223154 I think you really need to meet people where they are and reach people everywhere from over the air to big events to smaller conversations like this. Q: You talk about fiscal responsibility, and today Trump signed the national defense authorization act for [inaud] space force. Do you think space force is a good way to utilize government resources? 223213 BUTG>> I'm a big fan of space travel, but I'm concerned about the further militarization of space. And more broadly, this budget deal respects the spectacular level of Republican hypocrisy when it comes to their talk about deficits and fiscal responsibility. All the more reason why I believe the time has come for Democrats to probably own this issue. Q: Mayor Buttigieg, you talked during the roundtable about friendly fire from your own party. Did you see a little bit more of that last night and what does that tell you about the state of your campaign right now? 223240 BUTG>> Well I think as the race gets more competitive for better or for worse, we can expect more of that, but the most important thing is to continue driving our message about what America is going to need, why I believe I would be the best nominee to defeat Donald Trump, but also critically the best president for the era that's got to come afterwards. And we'll continue to defend our message, our campaign, and my record. Q: Do you think that criticism and the exchanges you had with some senators last night was fair? 223306 BUTG>> Well, I certainly think that now's not a time for these kinds of purity tests to distract them from what it is we're all trying to do. And my view, especially on the question of how to gather resources, is that we need everybody that we can in this fight and in this struggle. And at the same time, I get that a debate is a place for us to hash out these differences and a fair game for us to each have to stand and defend what we believe. Q: I just wanted to follow up on your coalition building. What are you going to do differently, because, as the Democratic nominee, you would need to build a massive coalition, basically get that Obama coalition back. So what are you going to do differently to drive in your message and build up that coalition? 223345 BUTG>> Well a big part of that is the smaller conversations that we're having. We need to make sure that there's a sense of not just understanding our plans but understanding what motivates them. And it's why these smaller gatherings I think are working well for us. What we've seen is that in places where people know me best, beginning with my own hometown, that's where we have the most diverse support. 223405 My job now is to make sure that we do that nationally and build that coalition. In order to succeed, you have to build a coalition that calls everybody into this struggle. And the good news is that most people are with us on the principles, the values, and the policies that need to happen. That I believe is how we win in the general election. Q: Mayor, your schedule this weekend, you've got a lot of events with the diverse communities of Nevada, do you feel like you're playing catch up to some of the other campaigns here? 223429 BUTG>> I think that the most important thing is for us to continue to have different styles, formats, and audiences, and that's been important to us from day one. One of the first things I did in Nevada was to meet with some of the same API leaders we were with this evening. And so in some ways, it feels like we're coming full circle. What's different of course is that the campaign has grown, the conversation has grown but continues to be the right way I think to engage voters. ### ROUNDTABLE [21:34:41] Attacking Jordan dollar, why you can't compete. Thankfully, that is literally the only thing we will ever have in common. I'm fine. [21:34:51] I thought it might serve to a know. [21:34:59] I think I like. [21:35:02] So everyone, thank you for coming today. It's an honor and pleasure to introduce our guests here. I'm here, too. My name is Ivan Louis, where a lot of hats here. One of our organizations is when API Nevada. Another one of is a former state commissioner, minority affairs. I want to give you the introduction, which many of you already know is you are in the heart of Assembly District 10, which is Assemblywoman Rachelle Wynn's district. [21:35:29] She made history here in the state of Nevada as the first Asian-American Democrat to be appointed to the state legislature, distressingly. And as you know, we're a very fast growing population being the fastest growing population the entire United States. So to have representation or state legislatures are very key things. So without further ado, that's your show. [21:35:55] Hi, everyone, I'm Rochelle Win. I am the assembly woman for this District Assembly District 10, and I am very excited to be here. I'm fortunate enough to bring light to the API community. [21:36:08] And anytime any of the political candidates running for the nomination, reach out to me. [21:36:15] I am happy to be here to shed light on our population, our growing population and some of our unique needs. I'm very excited here to introduce Mayor Pete, the judge. I know this is not his first time. I believe his first kickoff event here in the state of Nevada was actually an API event. So I'm excited that he is back to answer some questions and what we'll be hopefully more of a dialog and a Q and a session here. [21:36:42] Mayor Buda judge spent the last eight years serving as the mayor of the hometown in his hometown in South Bend, Indiana, where he's been fighting for progressive change in the heart of the Midwest. I recently had the opportunity to be a part of an Asian-American delegation of state legislators that went to Japan to kind of talk about manufacturing jobs. Talk about like business and industry and education and climate change with some leaders and our counterparts in Japan. And I was had the opportunity to be with a representative of a Korean American from the state of Indiana. [21:37:16] And he had nothing but good things to say about Merapi. I know that he has some new approaches and some new ideas. And so I'm sure we will be able to ask him plenty of questions about those. And with that, I will turn this over and please help me in welcoming him to Nevada again. [21:37:39] Well, first of all, I want to thank you, Sullivan, for your leadership and and wish you very well in your upcoming election. Thank you. And I am so honored to be with you and Evan as well for everything that you've done by way of leadership and for helping to welcome us here. [21:37:54] I'm thankful to the SEIU for hosting us, too, because it really is an example of the kind of leadership that we are going to need more of in order to make this an economy that works for us. The kinds of organizing that SEIU is doing, both with those they represent and with the not yet organized, is what is going to take for this to actually be a country where one job is enough, which sadly is still not the case for so many. [21:38:21] And I want to thank all of you for for joining us as well. I will be very brief by way of a few introductory remarks, because I want to spend as much of the time as we can in dialog about whatever most interests you. But let me share a little bit about what's motivating this campaign. I would not have guessed when I ran for mayor eight or nine years ago that at the end of my time serving my community, I would be seeking the American presidency. [21:38:49] But of course, so many things are happening right now in our country that we did not see coming a few years ago. I'm running not only to be the nominee who can defeat Donald Trump, but to be the president for the day after. So I always begin by asking voters to visualize the first day that the sun comes up in this country. [21:39:08] And Donald Trump is no longer in the White House, because by definition, this is actually a contest to be the president for that moment, not only to bring that moment about, but to lead the country forward. And what we're going to need then is a president who can unify an American people that will be frighteningly divided and polarized and exhausted. And at the same time, do it in a way that will tackle the big issues that we still face. [21:39:35] Because the problem of racial and economic inequality, the problems of climate change, the problem of gun violence in this country is not taking a vacation during the impeachment process. Those issues will be crying out for action. And at the same time. So will that question of unifying the country. And I believe the most important thing is to lead based on the values that we share that will lead us forward on the policies and can be used to help unify us as an American people. [21:40:05] What I see at the other side of all the fighting is an American experience that is defined not by exclusion but by belonging. Our country is at its best when it builds up a sense of belonging. But right now, the message is going out to so many people that you don't belong. People are being told because of their faith, because of where they come from, because of what language they speak at home, because of their sexuality, whatever it is, in different ways for different people. People are getting the message that you don't belong in order for America to succeed, it has to belong to all of us. [21:40:37] And that's one of the reasons why it is so important to me to engage the AAPI community as it has been important in the life of our own city, where the contributions of generations of people who have come in, including so many who came one generation ago, largely from Vietnam and Cambodia, as well as people from many, many Asian countries who are part of the life of our academic sector as well as our workforce, but also our campaign. [21:41:04] Now, where I'm proud that leadership roles from our director of policy to our national finance and investment share are held by Asian women who are doing extraordinary work in our campaign. So with that, I promised a very short introduction. There are lots of concrete policies I'm eager to discuss, but I want to make sure we do it based on whatever questions are most on your mind and we'll pause there and leave it to the group. [21:41:31] I'm not sure if we have got organized way of having people ask questions, but I'll kind of just get the ball rolling if that's OK. [21:41:41] I know that what's important to probably most Americans or most Nevadans are things like education, immigration, small business promotion, health care. But if we can just kind of focus, I guess, start with education. Where do you stand on and how do you plan on moving forward, making higher education something that's affordable for everyone? Yes. [21:42:06] So I'm the son of two college educators and I married a classroom teacher. So I get an education about education every day. And education, of course, is the way to freedom and prosperity in the United States. And a big part of that is college education. The problem of college affordability is very personal for us. I am, according to Forbes magazine, the least wealthy person running for president. [21:42:34] And that's largely because of the six figure student debt that we have as a household, because I married a teacher and I've seen the effect that that can have on making it more difficult for people to establish themselves and get ahead. And the student debt issue is becoming a crisis. So we have to make college more affordable. What I've proposed is a federal investment that would fund a state federal partnership to ensure that college is affordable for everyone and actually can make public college tuition free for most for families earning one hundred thousand dollars or less. [21:43:09] That's about 80 percent of Americans. We would be able to make public college, including community college tuition free as the income goes above that level. There would be a sliding scale for folks in the top group. We would ask them to pay to pay tuition. But for all of those in that first 80 percent, we can cover the cost. Now, it's not just the cost of tuition, especially for the lowest income students. [21:43:35] That can be an obstacle. It's also the cost of living. And it's why we need to expand Pell Grants that can be used for just the basics of life, food, housing that are so expensive, especially close to some of the best residential public colleges. But really in so many different parts of the country. And we need to focus not just on the ability to pay for college, but making sure that people complete college, because the most vulnerable position to be in is to have a lot of college debt and not to have a degree or not to have a degree that is useful. [21:44:06] And this is why we also need accountability for for profit colleges that took advantage of people often not caring about whether they were going to complete their certification or not giving them a certification that was actually as as likely as advertised to support them in economic opportunity. That's why I would restore the enforcement that the current secretary of education removed with the Obama administration imposed on those schools that did not meet basic standards. [21:44:35] And that's why I believe that when we talk about debt relief, we should begin with the debts accrued at those schools. I also would expand the generosity of the public service loan forgiveness program. This exists right now, but it's almost impossible to actually take advantage of. So we need to revamp the whole program that allows for debt forgiveness for those who have gone into a field of public service. I also have noticed that a lot of people talk to me about the debt burden that makes it harder for them. [21:45:04] To become entrepreneurs, and it's especially true for first generation students and graduates and often students and graduates of color who were expected to be supporting family members as well as going out on their own. And it's one of the reasons why we want to make it easier for these graduates who have an amazing potential to create economic opportunity for others who have been excluded. [21:45:26] With what we call a debt for jobs guarantee that if you're a Pell Grant eligible student and you go on to start a small business and create jobs, then we will have debt forgiveness there, too, to make it easier for you to succeed and build up those minority owned businesses that are creating so much opportunity. Just one last thing on education. [21:45:47] Sorry. [21:45:47] I'm excited about this is and especially the one I might have begun with, which is it also matters who's in charge. And I will appoint a secretary of education who believes in public education and who supports teachers. [21:46:00] Wonderful. This is kind of related and it's a topic that I know that is important. I think just in general is within the API community a lot of times where we're seen as a monolithic group of just Asian-Americans. And I know that there is a movement out there had been a movement during the Obama administration towards quality data and collecting quality data that so the disaggregated data, so you're getting more accurate data so you can target groups that need it and that don't. And I know that that's coming into play with the census. So Nevada counts accounts, make sure everyone is counted in the census this year. But on how do you see incorporating that or do you believe in the disaggregated data collection? [21:46:48] Yes, this is important and is not talked about much. I'm I'm a bit of a data geek. So this is very important to me. [21:46:55] But also because I've seen as a city how our community could be impacted if there is an undercount, for example, because of some of the manipulations that they threatened to do for the census, that has a very real consequence of fewer resources, often going where it's most needed. We need these kind of data, for example, in order to identify some of the problems we have with health equity. [21:47:18] We know, for example, that African-American women are three times as likely to die in childbirth as white women. We know that there are also specific health equity concerns in terms of exposure to cancer mortality from certain diseases, including hepatitis. Environmental justice concerns that might have a very different impact on a Korean American community than it would on a Pakistani American community. [21:47:45] And we need to be able to gather the data that would make it possible for us to understand largely so that we can do a better job of driving resources toward where they can lift folks up whenever we see a disparity, whether the disparities in health or in education or in economic opportunity or in representation. And we can't do it if we don't have the data to begin with. [21:48:08] Kind of shifting to immigration. I know that a lot of times people want to know what your general immigration plan our stance is going to be, but I think I have some more specific questions that people have brought up to me on several occasions. Do you have any ideas on what your policy is regarding like visa limits or higher priority for highly skilled or educated things where we're lacking in this country, whether it be in nursing? I know we have a large Filipino community that participates in SEIU. So where is their union? But how do your how does your immigration plan plan to address those visa limits? Yes. [21:48:51] So our immigration system has not gone through a real overhaul since the 1980s. And a lot of these limits are encoded in law that need to be much more flexible. [21:49:01] The country caps the visa limits, the workforce permits. These should be revised every couple of years. And so in addition to the comprehensive reform that I believe we need to undertake to create a pathway to citizenship, to establish a higher level of admission of refugees, to protect those who are here who are most vulnerable, whether they're on u visas or whether they have temporary protected status to protect dreamers. [21:49:30] We also need to make sure that in the future there's more flexibility in the system because the economy is changing and often the economy very much needs and relies on more immigration. But the system isn't set up to allow it. The country caps have no basis in modern reality. They create enormous backlogs and make it more difficult to reunify families. And so what I would establish is a two year cycle of renewing and resetting the caps and the relationship between workforce needs and immigration levels instead of having it cooked into a law so permanently that you would have to go back to Congress in order to fix it, which as we've learned, is really something you only get to do once in a generation. [21:50:14] And it is also important to me because I'm here because my father immigrated to the United States. He came here for educational opportunity and then became a citizen. I wonder what would have happened if he were coming in the system that exists today instead of the one that existed in the 1970s? [21:50:33] And I don't just want to open it up. Does anyone have any questions in the audience? And if you could state your name and talk loudly and if you're with an organization, feel free to do that as well. [21:50:44] I'm not to come out. Say something. So this is what the comment got in the comments, as I heard you say, that teachers should be paid like percent coming from India. Now teachers are treated like it is very close to my office. The funny story is I need time to decide. [21:51:18] Go through that. [21:51:19] It was heart attack to go from respectable professional meeting to interest. Not in my education. Thank you. So my question to you, going back to your comment. If you were to really start paying teachers like Dr.. How? Yeah. [21:51:43] Yeah. So what we know is that community, countries that really have that level of respect for teaching have better educational and social outcomes. And if we want to compensate teachers more like doctors, that won't happen without federal support. And so this to me is a big part of what federal funding resources like Title 1 are for, especially because we can deal with two different but related issues. [21:52:12] One is that teachers do not get paid enough as a general rule. The other is that many of our most vulnerable students are also getting less funding per student than those who already have the most going for them. You know, in many, if not most countries, if you have an area where students have a greater level of need, you could expect that they would have more resources going there because of the way that most American school districts are funded with such reliance on property taxes. In many places in the US, the opposite is true. [21:52:44] It's actually the students who are already the most in need, who are effectively punished for being low income with the fact that their their schools also have fewer resources. Now this is what Title 1 is for, at least in my view. It's part of what Title 1 can address and part of why I've proposed tripling the federal Title 1 funding that goes to lower income schools is to address these inequities. [21:53:05] There are many ways that we should apply those dollars. But one of them, I think, should be to supplement teacher pay because I've also learned about another dynamic, which is the effect that having a great teacher can have on the future lifetime earnings of a student. Now, one of the members of our economic policy team was part of a group of researchers who pulled a lifetime worth of IRS data and they crunched all the numbers and they connected it to data about teachers. [21:53:32] And what they found was that having one of the best teachers for one year in a kindergarten classroom made a difference of three hundred thousand dollars per classroom per year in how much more those students would go on later in life to earn just because they had that that advantage early in life. And so by doing the right thing for teachers, we're also targeting it where there are the most students in need. We're also doing the right thing for a future generation of students by helping them to get ahead. [21:54:02] And I don't think that we can expect local and state government to do this alone. We need to ask local and state government to do more, but there need to be federal dollars, as well as a federal message about how we honor the profession. One other thing I would mention is an idea that we're proposing that we call an education access corps. [21:54:19] And the idea would be to create a network of some of the most highly rated existing teacher qualification programs, universities and colleges and programs around the country that train teachers and give them degrees to give them a designation of being a gold standard, that if you participate in this program, you'll have a license that's portable that you can take to any school district in the country. [21:54:43] And if you commit to teaching in a Title 1 school for 7 years, then you will also throughout those seven years have your your loans deferred. And at the end of the seven years, have them forgiven. And it's part of both making sure that we're training and recruiting a new generation of teachers, but also setting up the idea of really wanting to honor those who make the commitment to participate in that quality program and do it at that high, high standard. [21:55:11] Thank you. I have another question over here. Hi, I'm Dan teacher here. You are a great teacher, as you know, a young president teaching in a lot of things. I was halfway through 2012 high school. At that time, the nation that I was the school. I said, you know what challenges you? I'm fixing to do something about this. It's not just education. I saw the issue, my schooling, how schooling as I move from teaching physics to education. [21:56:02] And now I am working on my thought. In this country, we push this model of accreditation, almost creating these barriers of reading, job controlling to what and what quality of accreditation they get. I was running with that education for me as someone who is trying to figure out where industry. Education is meeting them and where we can, especially as a society, we truly believe in this country. Have purpose to work? [21:56:49] Yes. How can we better score it so that, for example, things like automation and manufacturing and all these advancements in computer science, technology innovations going like a rocket into the sky. And here we are just trying to leap at it. And I feel like we're doing a lot of money in a lot of time and space for the youth who try out teaching. Then they quit after two, three years because of lack of mentorship or knowledge or extra supports, much less loans. I think purpose is something that guides people in this country. [21:57:19] America is lacking as refugee parents. Throughout the campaign on the story today, you have one other story to their American history. I think with schooling in particular, especially for Asian American immigrants, that is seen as I told them, I feel like that golden. A hijacked plane has been diverted in such a way where there's so many unforeseen, unknown entities that are finding their way into the system. [21:57:48] And the most vulnerable use the title one that I teach. I'm having to reeducate them on their basic foundational knowledge. Teach them the future of automation and computer science, but also fill in this in-between gap of lack of parenting, a lot of stability and family. All these other things that teachers. Not because we're acid, but because we have to do it right. If we truly think and we believe our students can get those high levels we proclaim that is our science. Anyways, my question is how do we we do schooling, how we advance not just the education, the cost of it, but truly as a as a people, as humans, as we advance into the future. [21:58:25] How do we actually start focusing on that and not just thinking on every annual report? The report addressed our report card system or examination and assessment that are wearing down the minds of our youth. We have to answer yes. [21:58:40] I think, you know, you're at the front line of citizenship. You're at the front lines sometimes of family. The front lines of mental health, a lot of times and I talked to a lot of teachers who feel like teaching is actually being automated through the overreliance on standardized testing. [21:59:00] Which kind of slices and dices these experiences, I think into some of the parts of credentialing that you're talking about, the credentialing and the accreditation is important. But we've got to rethink it for the future. One of the things we're piloting in my city, because we're just big enough that we have every problem, but we're small enough that we can try things. We've encouraged foundations to use us as a test bed for new ideas. [21:59:24] And we're partnering with the Drucker Institute to create a lifelong learning platform to try to better align the kinds of skills you get anywhere from 8th grade diploma or CTE certification to a college degree to an apprenticeship or trade certification that you can get at the carpenters facility here in Las Vegas or anything in between to try to create a format for us to capture these kinds of things and to better align them with what employers need and are looking for. And part part of what strikes me about the distinction you're drawing between the education and their narrow sense in schooling is that we're not just creating workers. [22:00:08] Right. We're creating citizens. We're creating parents future future parents and community leaders. And it's part of why all of these issues that intersect at the school that you're facing need to be looked at with a with a broader lens. So it's one of the reasons I strongly believe in the model of community schools where we look at the school as a real hub for the kinds of wraparound that need to happen for a child's development, not all of which should fall on you as a teacher. [22:00:35] Right to handle. Although I'm moved by the way that teachers like you and like Chast and really involve themselves in the bigger picture their students lives. But we've seen everything from some districts where they put laundry machines at schools, not only in order to meet a basic need, but in order to encourage parents to get to know each other, to create the kind of social infrastructure that helps determine whether a kid will succeed all the way through to making sure that we have the right kind of before and after school programing and supports, which is part of where a city and a state can support a school system that shouldn't be asked to carry these things on their own. [22:01:11] At the end of the day, I don't think we're going to figure this out in Washington. But one pattern you'll see across a lot of our policy ideas is that while the answers don't all have to come from Washington more, the funding should. So what we want to do is empower communities to develop plans and share what works in supporting a whole child on everything from aligning the teaching and extracurriculars toward a world of automation to building up the kind of civic education and social and emotional learning that we know is only going to be more important to just the basics of making sure kids are covered with the kind of mental health and nutrition support that they need to succeed. [22:01:50] That as you develop different approaches for that, that we fund those kinds of ideas and we create spaces to circulate what's working best among different buildings, among different districts and among different communities so that it spreads more, more widely. The federal government should be supporting that kind of thing without believing that we can figure it all out and and automate the solutions from Washington. [22:02:16] And I want to congratulate them because he was that teacher of the year. All right. This year. That's what it is. So congratulations. [22:02:28] Plus, straight ahead, I'm going to ask a question formally, what was the role of Nevada's state commissioner of minority affairs here in Nevada? As you may know, we are a majority minority state. One of the assignments was a subcommittee of economic development, which primarily targeted minority entrepreneurs. [22:02:45] And one of the kind of the biggest issues we had is obviously we're talking earlier is access to capital, but also resources in general to teach them how to build business plans, how to do government bidding contracts, even awareness about disadvantaged business or certifications like enemies. But then also when you park to, say, infrastructure projects, the federal contracting, these entrepreneurs not only didn't know how to get engaged with vendor procurement or bidding, but also to get that certification. And also a lot of these contracts were given out to non minority CEOs or general contractors. So looking at a federal level and even the MBA, what can be done under your administration, how we'd be able to help minority entrepreneurs? [22:03:33] Yeah. This is really important. We've worked on these issues in my community as well, where we started with, well, the big promise. We didn't have the data disagree. And it's like you're talking about, but not at all. And so we knew it was likely that the city's procurement with minority owned businesses was low, but we didn't have a good way to prove it. So created the office capable of doing it, gathered the data, commissioned the study. [22:03:53] We're able to prove what we already knew was that it was too low and that under our state law finally made it possible for me to sign into law hard targets. In the meantime, on that path, we did seminars, events. As you know, there's a lot of entities that don't go the route of certification because they first of all, they don't know if it's going to be worth the trouble or they don't even know about it. And then there are other obstacles like licensing and bonding that make it hard for them to ever get the scale that gets them to to where even the well-intentioned and well-designed programs can ever catch up to them. [22:04:23] I believe that the powers of the presidency can unlock a lot of these problems because so often when you hit up against is just a low availability number to begin with and to give a reach. Right. But we have to take responsibility for the best we can. For example, in my city, the availability of African-American businesses was rated at 3 percent. [22:04:41] So we're 25 percent African-American city. So kidding. 3 percent isn't really the point. We've got to do that. But we've got to actually make sure there's more businesses to begin with. And from a broader perspective, we've got to make sure that we are encouraging entrepreneurship from everyone who's historically been excluded. [22:05:02] I believe we should embrace a 25 percent target at the federal level. We have the capacity as a country to do this. And at the federal level, you can reach to an entire nation's worth of people who can then network among themselves in the minority chambers that exist across the country. But we need to back that with co-investment. So I'm proposing a 10 billion dollar fund that would co-invest. [22:05:26] This is done in Maryland and there are models for this to work. Some other countries have done this, too, to try to make more of that capital available. We also know that reforms to the credit system would make more capital available. I'm shocked by how many minority owned small businesses that clearly know what they're doing. I say, how do you get up and running? And they always save cash. They couldn't save up the cash couldn't. So we know that part of this has to do with directing credit and capital to these underresourced or underestimated businesses. [22:05:58] We also know that a lot of these things get unpacked at the community level. But with federal networking can help people deal with what's often kind of an insider game. It's. Informal knowledge that helps people know how to qualify or how to succeed in navigating these bid processes. The processes have to be simplified in order to be easier to navigate. So there are a lot of steps that we have to take, but I see so much potential if we take it seriously. And the other thing that you mentioned that I think is really important is it matters whether you're the general contractor or the sub. [22:06:33] And we want to make sure that these devices are as often as possible in the general sense, rather than just kind of filling out some of the requirements. And we should make sure that our scoring reflects that, too. [22:06:47] One quick thing, LGBT entrepreneurs, I don't know if that falls on the reclassification of BS. Got into it. I'm not sure. [22:06:56] Yeah, it really varies in different areas. I do think that we should we should look anywhere. There's a disparity. [22:07:00] We should be ready to have intention to do something about it. [22:07:05] Great thing. [22:07:09] Ladies first. 1979. Not. [22:07:16] These guys doing so many things going on. John, you're the president. What do you real. [22:07:28] So there's going to be a lot of work to do. There's just gonna be a lot of damage to undo. I think for the new president. But let me mention three areas that I think require a lot of attention. On day one, one of them is climate. We know that that we are close to the point of no return on climate change. And we know that the harms of climate change also disproportionately impact those who are already the most vulnerable. [22:07:53] And it's everywhere from a hot desert, communities that are seeing more extreme heat to river communities like mine that are seeing more flooding to coastal communities, that are seeing sea level rise to a place in California where their wildfires. That's upon us now. It's an emergency. The good news is, as Nevada has shown us, there is a lot of opportunity and job creation to be found if we tackle this issue in the right way, from greater renewable energy to good old fashioned building trades, jobs in retrofitting buildings. So there's a lot of work on climate rejoining Paris climate accord right away. [22:08:29] But then a whole bunch of other activities that need to happen quickly with federal leadership. Another area I think is very important is our democracy itself. We have voter suppression. We have gerrymandering, manipulating districts as long as Citizens United stands. We have. We're gonna have these problems with money and politics. These things require swift attention. [22:08:52] Some of things will take a generation to deliver. I think it will take. It might take a constitutional amendment to fix Citizens United. [22:08:59] So we should start now because we know how long it will take. Other things you could do on day one. Automatic voter registration making election day a holiday. Making sure that you we have a setup for voting rights that that benefits underprivileged voters that we can do right away. [22:09:16] Some things will take longer. So there's democracy. Another is the racial and economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. And again, there's a lot of work that we can do right away with an American majority that agrees with us, by the way, that we need a higher minimum wage and better labor protections and more opportunities to form a union. A lot of higher taxes on those that have been escaping taxes, giant corporations and the wealthy that all of that can can, I believe, get work right away. So all of those things I've committed to move on an immigration bill in the first hundred days. It's gonna be a busy hundred days, but it's gonna be a busy few years. [22:09:55] Can you change? That has been given to do well. Is there any way that you can get it? [22:10:06] Yes, we have to reverse the Trump tax cuts. We just got some new data. A couple of days ago in a study of the largest corporations, many of them are actually effectively paying negative taxes from Chevron to Amazon to Starbucks, zero or negative taxes on billions of dollars in profits. [22:10:26] Meanwhile, we've become a country where actually the very wealthiest pay less as a proportion of their income than than you or I do. And that's got to be switched so we can do it. [22:10:38] And here's the good news again. The American people want this to happen. [22:10:43] And so the question is, are we willing and able to engage that majority to get the job done? But we have to you know, one of the issues I think we should talk about more in my party is fiscal responsibility and the deficit, because we've seen the Republican Party, they always bring up the deficit and we want to invest in something, roads, schools, whatever. There's now a trillion dollar deficit and growing under this president, mostly not because of a lot of spending. They've cut the spending even on areas where we needed it. But because of these tax cuts that are going to the wealthiest into the corporations. We can reverse that and we should because that's how we actually pay for all of the things I'm proposing we do from infrastructure to education. [22:11:30] Anything I hard to see one lawyer and the ladies in town. But more importantly, I'm an active member of the Muslim community here. One of the things that fell under the radar and keeping up with the day to day drama in DC has been what's occurred with respect to Presidential Proclamation 9 6 4 5, which succeeded President Trump's third executive order, widely referred to as the Muslim rock band. If you're elected president, would you commit to repealing that presidential proclamation as well as that executive order, which has had a huge impact on our community? Approximately 20000 thousand Muslims in Las Vegas and three point fourteen million Muslims nationwide. [22:12:12] I know firsthand after the issue we had story after story, it was about family members and others were stopped from reentering the country. Obviously, this is being upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Since that time now you might say that, but it's fallen largely under the radar. Probably keeping up with every other radio happening. [22:12:44] Yes. The travel ban, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. It goes against American values and it is clearly discriminatory. And I'm glad you raised it. You're right. [22:12:55] Here's something that because there have been there's a new outrage every day. We forget that the older outrages haven't gone away. And that includes the Islamophobia in general and the travel ban in particular. The day it went into effect, I participated in a protest at an airport. I was in Houston at the time. [22:13:14] And one of the things that was so inspiring was to see how many people in the community in a place that doesn't have a reputation for progressive politics knew the importance of standing up front for this American values, people of every different background. And we need to send a message again. Part of that culture of belonging is respecting that this is a country that belongs to people of every religion and of no religion equally. [22:13:40] And it should never be used, especially because this has no bearing on safety. I was involved in counterterrorism work when I was in the military. There are lots of systems for making sure that our country is safe from from any terrorist threat, especially when it comes to who is able to visit the US. An incredibly strict set of checks and protocols that is already there. So adding a religious discrimination layer or by country discrimination layer does nothing to make us safe. [22:14:13] And I think it harms our country's safety in the long run by undercutting the values that consist or that compose the moral authority that in our best moments we as a nation have. And I know that the Muslim community, not only the Muslim community, but the Muslim community, feels targeted right now in so many ways. And it was important to me after what happened in New Zealand to to make contact with the Masjid in our own community and make sure that everybody there knew our community's view, that they were not just accepted, but that we were thankful for their presence. And the same is true of all of the diverse communities that make up our our American life. Thank you for raising. [22:14:59] Let me move over here. Yes, I want to thank you again for joining us here. My name is on the line. I work as policy director for a local education nonprofit. I appreciate hearing from you about your education plan. I was going to ask you a question about education, but I want to take a step out of some specific policy areas to talk about what it means to be in public service today and get some of your thoughts as a as a young millennial. [22:15:28] Have you seen a whole range here as a young person in this community? I sometimes have been. And I felt kind of torn. In terms of how much change is one person could make. Given just how vitriolic politics. Can see on the news, look at the newspaper, look on social media, and I just want to get your thoughts. As someone who is living. Public service and thanks for that call. What is your what advice would you have? [22:16:02] What are your reflections for everyone in the room, especially those of us who are more of the younger generation as we're hearing about what's happening, as we're trying to find inspiration through what's happening in politics? What's your advice for us and how to just navigate that tension and continue to answer that call the public service. So many of us want to. [22:16:26] Well, my biggest message is just stay after it because. [22:16:31] I think that there is a lot of there's a lot of effort to kind of get us so exhausted and so beaten down that we feel that kind of helplessness and that's how they went. I've been thinking about it a lot in terms of the impeachment process. On one hand, I'm glad to see the House stand up and draw a line. [22:16:54] But I think because we're watching this process and we expect that it will be a foregone conclusion when it gets to the Senate. Even watching this process may. Deepen our sense of of frustration and that nothing seems to make a difference out there. [22:17:12] And yet I've seen the power, especially at the local level and the state level. Look, in Nevada, you know, look at what you all have been able to do in terms of good policies. [22:17:25] Now, I live in a state where there is a supermajority on the other side, and it's very unlikely that that any meaningful idea, empowering workers, for example, will even see the light of day. I also visit states like New Hampshire where they have a fantastic legislature, but very little good legislation actually gets passed the veto pen day. They did paid family leave. The governor was so proud of his veto that he auctioned off the pen. He used to veto it to raise money for the party. [22:17:56] Here you've got your challenges, of course. But we see what happens right when you get an assembly, a governor and a state that are that are ready to move in the right direction on so many issues. And it's been worse. America has been through worse. [22:18:15] Don't get me wrong, it's really bad right now. But every time it's gone from worse to better, it's been because people stood up and got involved. Whether it's activism, advocacy or just service. And now of all times, is that the moment that we've got to stay after it precisely because it's so exhausting. I get it. You go on Twitter and you go on the news and it feels like getting punched in the face all the time, especially when you actually run. [22:18:41] Let me tell you, I mean, between the absurdity that I feel like we're getting from the other side to the friendly fire that I get from my own competitors, where we more or less have the same values, we're just competing. [22:18:54] Right. It's tough out there. But also, this is the best the best thing we have going for us is that actually we get to decide again, using the impeachment as an example. We can we can watch what happens in the on the floor of the Senate and feel kind of powerless. But 2020 is when we get to decide and we can send a message in in local and state and certainly in the national election about our readiness to make sure things are different. [22:19:23] And it won't be easy and it won't come overnight and winning will just touch off the next area. That's really the hard part comes. But the other thing that I would take heart in is that most people get it right now. Most people want us to do the right thing on wages, on education, on immigration, on guns, areas where I feel like folks on my side have been on defense. Most people are with us, which is exactly why I think they need us to feel helpless, to feel beaten down or to be distracted by whatever crazy nonsense is being put out on Twitter today. And we have to to keep our focus on I believe every election is about this question as a voter. [22:20:06] How is my life going to be different if you're in this office instead of you? And if we have the right answers on that. The rest is noise. We just gotta make sure we cut through the noise. [22:20:16] We want to be very thankful for Merapi, for coming out here and be sensitive at this time, because I know he has a very busy campaign schedule, as always. But we want to say thank to all of you that have really came here, attended here, put out your voices, continue to elevate our voices, Native Americans of our community. And I can pass it on to Assemblywoman Rochelle to kind of close up any remarks and think the mayor. [22:20:40] Always thankful for the conversation and real conversations with about topics that matter to Nevada, matter to all Americans, really. So we appreciate your time and we appreciate you having to answer some of our questions. I know that there are a lot of other questions out there for other people, so I encourage you to stay involved. I think that is important. Thank you. Do. And our team will be happy to follow it. So. [22:21:10] The government.
WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JOSH EARNEST - STIX
THE REGULAR WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING WITH JOSH EARNEST. STIX FS37X73 Thursday, December 8, 2016 White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Holds Daily Briefing DC Slug: 1230 WH BRIEF STIX FS37 73 & 1230 WH BRIEF CUTS FS38 74 NYRS: WASH-3 & WASH-4 12:43:05 EARNEST: All right. Good afternoon, everybody. Nice to see you all. I do not have any comments at the top, so we can go straight to questions. Mr. Frecki (ph), would you like to go first? QUESTION: Sure. Thank you, Josh. So, a Russian deputy foreign minister says Russia's close to reaching a deal with the U.S. on a cease-fire in Aleppo. Is the White House becoming more hopeful that an agreement can be reached? 12:43:31 EARNEST: Kevin, there have -- you know, our approach to this situation from the beginning has been to listen carefully to what the Russians say but scrutinize their actions. So, you know, obviously that statement is an indication that something positive could happen. But we're gonna have to wait and see whether those statements are reflected on the ground. Obviously, Secretary Kerry has been working tenaciously almost around the clock with the Russians and other countries in the region to try to reduce the violence in Aleppo so that humanitarian assistance can reach those communities that so desperately need it. And, you know, if that occurs, we obviously would welcome that development. And if that occurs, it won't be some sort of accident or coincidence or serendipity. It will be the product and result of skilled, principled, tough, tenacious diplomacy. And a bunch of the credit will go to Secretary Kerry. But we'll see what happens. QUESTION: Do you have any sense of a timeline as far as how long these discussions, these negotiations are expected to continue before there is some sort of either agreement or non-agreement? 12:45:09 EARNEST: Well, listen, the -- the -- as we've said before, there's no military solution to this problem. We can certainly use our military, and we have, to go after ISIL, to take back territory that they've previously controlled and to take their leaders off the battlefield. But when it comes to resolving the underlying political instability that has led to the chaos, that's gonna require a diplomatic solution. And this diplomacy will -- will continue until we can start seeing the political results on the ground that we would like to see. And that will include and be characterized by a reduction in violence and enough of -- enough stability in the security situation that humanitarian assistance can consistently flow to the needed areas. QUESTION: I wanted to ask about the nomination Scott Pruitt to run the EPA. And I know you're not talking about any (ph) nominations or any individuals, but in this case, would his confirmation really be game, set, match for the U.S. and other counties meeting their commitments under the Paris Agreement? Or do you still view this agreement as setting an irrevocable trajectory toward the U.S. and other countries moving to clean energy? 12:46:34 EARNEST: Well, listen, Kevin, I think this is a -- a perfectly legitimate question. You know, the president has himself observed that it's one thing to make grand pronouncements on the campaign trail. But once you enter the Oval Office and you're responsible for managing the affairs of the United States and being leader of the free world, reality has a way of intruding. We'll see to what extent reality intrudes on some of the rhetoric that was used by the president-elect in the area of climate change. EARNEST: For example, he at one point tweeted that climate change was a manufactured hoax by the Chinese government. So, that obviously is not substantiated by any sort of facts or evidence or science. But as I've done, you know, in the context of other Cabinet nominees, it does seem appropriate to lay out some benchmarks and guidelines that illustrate the progress that we have made as a country and as a planet, in this case, based on the strategy that President Obama has pursued. And it will be important for the American people and for people in this room to compare the plans that are put forward by the next administration with the plans and results that were produced under President Obama's leadership. 12:47:59 This one I think I can do in a relatively concise fashion. I think there are four areas that I would recommend. The first is fuel economy. President Obama, when he first took office, had to make a difficult, politically unpopular decision to rescue the American auto industry, and that included working with the industry to put in place regulations that would increase fuel efficiency standards. In the, you know, eight years that President Obama's been office -- been in office, the average fuel economy for passenger cars and trucks has increased from about 21 miles per gallon to more than 25 miles per gallon. That's a 20 percent increase in fuel efficiency. That's good news. There certainly is more that we would like to see moving forward now that we've got some built-up momentum. We'll see if it continues under the next administration. The thing that I would point out, and I think this is a relevant fact, that increase in fuel efficiency was accompanied by record production by the American auto industry and record sales in the United States in 2015. So, there is a sense that by increasing regulations and raising fuel efficiency standards -- this was a criticism of Republicans -- that the president was going to hamstring the American auto industry. The opposite has occurred. As we have seen an increase in fuel economy standards, we've seen record growth in the American auto industry. And that will be a standard that the next administration should be judged by, because that is progress that was made based on a specific strategy that President Obama laid out. The second, it's important to understand what kind of progress the renewable energy industry has made in the United States. Since 2008, the amount of energy produced by the wind has tripled, while the cost of producing that energy using the wind has declined by 40 percent. The number as it relates to solar energy is even more dramatic. Solar generation has increased 30-fold -- 3-0 -- 30-fold since 2008, while the cost per unit of producing energy through solar means has reduced -- has fallen 60 percent. And that has led to a lot of economic benefits for the American people. The renewable energy industry in the United States employs 2.5 million people. And part of that renewable energy industry benefits from the international market that is created by countries around the world agreeing to reduce their carbon footprint. It means they have to consider adding wind and solar to their energy production mix. And the United States is poised to be a leader in that industry. And it is undermined in part by a unilateral withdrawal from the United States from that international agreement. 12:51:00 The third thing, CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption have fallen by more than 500 million metric tons per year from 2008 to 2015. That's a pretty significant reduction and that reduction occurred even as our economy grew. There was a suggestion that we -- we would have to sacrifice the economic growth in order to see the reduction emissions that we had targeted. And of course the opposite has been true. Over about that same period of time, our businesses have created 15.6 million jobs over the last 81 months. And, you know, we continue to see unemployment rate that is about -- that is less than half where it was at the peak of the Great Recession. 12:52:03 The last statistic -- and I think this is an important one, too. It has profound consequences for our national security. And that is the degree to which we have been able to reduce our country's reliance on foreign oil. In 2008, the United States of America was importing a little over 11 million barrels of oil per day. That number has been cut in half -- more than in half, actually -- to 4.9 million barrels per day. Some of that is because of the support that this administration has shown to domestic producers of oil and gas, some of it is because of the investments and commitment we made to fuel efficiency and some of it is the investment that we made in renewable energy, that give us alternative methods of generating electricity and powering our economy. That's the strategy that's worked. And it has reduced our reliance on foreign oil that has positive consequences for our national security. So, I know that was a little long, but again, these are -- these are benchmarks that are relevant to illustrating the progress we've made based on the strategy that President Obama has pursued. And given the fact that the president-elect has promised to pursue a different strategy, it's worth comparing whether or not his strategy or not will yield results that are as good as what we've been doing. OK, thank you for the opportunity, Kevin. Tim, nice to see you. QUESTION: Nice to see you. Along those lines, are you suggesting that some of these advances -- like the -- the -- sorry -- conversion to natural gas and turning away from coal -- to some extent that these are tamper proof by the next few years by the next administration? 12:53:42 EARNEST: Well, there clearly are market forces that are involved here. There are market forces that you are seeing other countries around the world in part because of the important international climate diplomacy that was led by the United States under President Obama's leadership has them considering a more diverse array of energy generation sources. And the United States is poised to benefit from that. The best example I have of this is actually with regard to China -- China made a significant commitment to cap their emissions. And part of that will mean, you know, decommissioning or, sort of, putting out of business some of their coal-fired power plants and investing in and building nuclear power plants. Those nuclear power plants are going to be -- at least in part -- built by American companies. That's American economic growth and American jobs that are the result of China making an important self- interested decision to reduce their emissions and consider an alternative form of energy -- in this case nuclear energy. And, you know, Westinghouse stands to benefit from that rather significantly -- a great American company. So, there are significant market forces that do counter the argument that's not rooted in science that's being made by the other side. QUESTION: Of the four points, one thing you didn't mention is that sort of the president pushing the American people to pressure on this. Like, starting from the 2012 inauguration speech, and then you had a few years later the Keystone protests, and then environmental lawyers basically being the final straw that stopped Shell from drilling in the Arctic, the finding that they found that pressured Shell. So, is there a feeling in the White House that that's going to continue -- this -- this (inaudible) pressure? And also make these things more temperate (ph)? 12:55:56 EARNEST: Well, it's also, you know, in addition to market forces that are already at work here, that are moving our economy and our country and our planet in a more healthy direction, that's not a historical mistake either. It has required presidential leadership by President Obama. It has also required the commitment and action of people all across the country who want to make sure that our planet is protected for future generations. It's people in both parties. Plenty of social conservatives are quite interested in making sure that we're good stewards of God's creation. And it turns out there's a way to be good stewards of God's creation even as we look for smart ways to grow our economy. And that's exactly the strategy that President Obama has pursued. QUESTION: Just two more on (inaudible). Do you know how the president feels personally? I mean, since well before, you know, Trump's election, when he was a senator, this was a big issue for him. And he was the first to go -- sitting president to go to the Arctic. How does he feel that -- that the clean power plan and Paris agreement could be (inaudible)? 12:57:07 EARNEST: The president talked about this at some length in the context of the election. And, you know, the president is quite proud of the legacy that he's established in focusing not just America's attention, but the world's attention on taking action to fight climate change, and the historic agreement in Paris is certainly a good, tangible example of what the world can accomplish when the United States is committed to playing a leading, principled role in solving problems. But, you know, ultimately, it will be up to the next president to decide, and there's no denying that that progress is at risk because we've got a president-elect who has identified different priorities and has even been critical of some of this progress. And that's -- that's unfortunate, but elections have consequences. QUESTION: And last one, is he -- what are the chances that the president will be active on the climate after January 20th? 12:58:14 EARNEST: Well, as, you know, as you've heard the president say a number of times now, you know, I think immediately after leaving office the president is looking forward to taking some time off and catching up on some sleep, as he regularly tells Mark Knoller; taking his wife on vacation and, you know, and maybe even putting pen to paper and writing a book. So, I wouldn't expect aggressive public advocacy on January 21st, but is this an issue the president cares about? It absolutely is. And it's not hard to imagine, you know, President Obama finding an appropriate way as a former president of the United States continuing to encourage people to advocate for building on the momentum that we've already achieved under the president's leadership in fighting climate change, and doing it in a way that ends up being good for the U.S. economy. All right. Dave? QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. The Senate is voting right now on the NDAA, which, of course, forbids the administration from closing Guantanamo. Assuming that it passes, is that the last word on the president's efforts to close Gitmo? 12:59:25 EARNEST: Well, Dave, I would expect the administration to continue to pursue the strategy that we've been pursuing for almost eight years now, which is being engaged in a -- an effort to reduce the prison at -- the population of the prison in Guantanamo Bay even as we do so in a way that we believe is good for our national security. Continuing to operate the prison at Guantanamo Bay only gives terrorist organizations a recruiting tool. And what the president and his team have structured is a process for six different national security agencies to come together to review the individual case files of the prisoners, determine which of those detainees can be transferred to other counties, and under what conditions. And once those transfers are approved, the State Department has to go to work in negotiation with other countries to ask them to accept these detainees and to apply these security restrictions. And ultimately, that strategy has worked to reduce the prison population by more than 175 since President Obama took office and to make the -- the American people safer. But the president still believes that the prison should be closed. Doing so would make our country safer and would save taxpayers a significant sum of money. But there are obstacles to doing that that have been elected (ph) by Congress that remain in place. QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the 58 or so detainees who are still there? 13:00:56 EARNEST: I don't have any updates at -- at this point, but, you know, as we make transfers, we -- we always announce those transfers publicly and we make public the -- the name and destination of the -- of the detainee that's been moved. QUESTION: Following the closing of Gitmo was something the president has been trying to do since day one. Why was... EARNEST: Yeah almost literally. QUESTION: Why wasn't he able to make the case? EARNEST: Look, I -- I think that he -- he and others, including myself, have repeatedly made the case, as a case that Democrats and Republicans alike who are national security experts, have served in our military, have worked in the intelligence community, they don't just understand the argument that we're making, they agree with it. But the politics of this are potent. And you know, Congress, in response to those politics has made this a very difficult task. OK, Ron? QUESTION: Just a follow-up on the questions about appointments and policy changes that they seem to be signaling. Is it -- is it fair to say that in advocacy by the president, do you seem to suggest that we're not gonna hear anything from the president in terms of advocacy or -- or pushing back before January 20th, is that -- is that fair? EARNEST: In terms of... QUESTION: The president reacting to what appears to be changes in the direction the company -- the country's gonna go on major policy issues, like climate change, the Affordable Care Act, education, other areas where there have been appointments that seem to suggest -- that clearly suggests, that there's gonna be a different direction than what he would like? 13:02:40 EARNEST: Look, I think on November 9th, we knew that the country was gonna start moving in a different direction even before any of those personal appointments were made, so. Look, I recognize that you know, why they come up in a setting like this where you guys are interested or have a reaction to those nominees. I'm not suggesting that that's a -- an inappropriate line of questioning, but it's not -- certainly, not a new one. QUESTION: But -- but I guess what I'm trying to understand is, is there a line, the president in Lima said something about how if questions are raised about our core values and ideals, is I think the way he phrased it, that he would respond. QUESTION: And I think he was talking about it in the post January 20th... (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: ... as a former president, right. QUESTION: So, it seemed that there was no line before -- that could be crossed -- before January 20th that would -- would -- I think (ph) would -- that would motivate the president to engage in some kind of discussion about these issues because he is so committed to the idea of -- of -- of a smooth transition. But like, is the question -- I guess I've asked it before. Is there -- is that -- that desire for a smooth transition -- is there anything that the president foresee happening where he would want to speak out more forcefully about the direction that the new administration is moving? 13:03:51 EARNEST: You know, I think particularly since November 8th and the morning of November 9th, I think we've gotten out of the business of predicting or foreseeing what may or may not happen based on, you know, the -- the outcome of the election. So, what our approach has been and will continue to be, to prioritize the smooth, effective transfer of power. And that will require the president and a number of other officials in the U.S. government setting aside their own personal political views and putting the interest of the country first. And that's a difficult thing, particularly when you consider the stakes of the election, and particularly when you consider how invested senior officials in the Obama administration have been in our success. But it's what the Constitution requires. It's what the American people have said is their preference based on the election. And -- and we're going to fulfill the institutional responsibility of the executive branch to give the -- the next president the best possible opportunity to get off to a running start. QUESTION: Is there anything that you can say about any conversation the president and the president-elect have had and a couple of engagement advocacy, what -- what -- without talking about the substance of it. 13:05:07 (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: I -- I don't -- I -- I -- I don't have anything new on this. The -- look, they've, you know, they've engaged in some consultations. But -- but... (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: (Inaudible) the questions. (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: Sure, sure. QUESTION: ... is the -- the -- the -- I -- I think we all understand that the idea of smooth transition. But there're clearly -- the country's going in a different direction that -- that threatens so much of what the president and -- and the team have done over the past eight years. That seems just obviously clear that any -- to most observers... (CROSSTALK) 13:05:32 EARNEST: It was clear before the election. QUESTION: Right, right. (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: And the president made a forceful case before the election. QUESTION: And it would seem very... (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: And we -- and the -- the president's candidate didn't win. QUESTION: Right. It would seem very difficult to just not stand by -- idly by, but... EARNEST: Yeah. QUESTION: ... there -- there's obviously -- you're doing some advocacy by, you know, listing all these accomplishments that you see in the area of the environment. EARNEST: Sure. QUESTION: I would just think it's very difficult for the president to -- to watch this happen -- to watch this -- to watch what seems to be his legacy unraveling and -- and -- and the things he cared about so passionately. (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: I think you might have slightly overstated it there. But -- but, look, I... QUESTION: Well, I guess that's -- that's the argument. Is -- is -- am I overstating it? Or -- or is he -- is he so convinced that the -- as he's put it, the -- the realities of the office and the realities of the world are going to be so -- such a -- a difficult inertia to push back at? EARNEST: Yeah. QUESTION: That much of what he has done will stay in place. 13:06:23 EARNEST: We'll see. But that -- that -- that really is the -- that really is the answer. But we had an opportunity to have this argument. And the president made it forcefully. I think a lot of the people persuaded by the argument. The -- the fact is the candidate that he supported actually got more votes than the next president. So, I think a lot of people were persuaded. Most people were persuaded by it. But that's not the way that our system is structured. You know, we're -- we're following the rules of the Electoral College. Those are the rules we signed up for. Many analysts actually expected that the rules of the Electoral College would actually give Democrats a built-in advantage. It didn't turn out that way. And, you know, the -- the time for a -- for these kinds of debates, at least on the part of those of us who served in the executive branch, has passed because we've got a more important responsibility. And that is doing the will of the American people and ensuring a smooth and effective transition to the next administration because that's what's in the best interest of the country. QUESTION: Is he having any conversations with Mrs. Levine (ph) while she's in town? 13:07:19 EARNEST: None that I can report, none that I'm aware of, but I can't rule it out. OK. Kevin (ph)? QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. I want to ask you about the president's thoughts about the DREAMers? Is there anything that he can do to protect their future vis-a-vis commutations or pardons? There's been some talk that that's something that he would strongly consider. And as sort of a secondary question on the same topic, is it fair to say that the president is strongly considering, perhaps, pardons or commutations for other high- profile individuals? Manning, Bergdahl, Snowden and others? 13:07:58 EARNEST: I don't have a whole lot to say about the clemency process. The president has talked about this at some length earlier this year. A couple things I can say. The first is the president cannot use his clemency authority to legalize the immigration status of anybody. And that is -- that is why we pursued the executive actions that we did and it is why the president was such a forceful advocate for legislation that would correct so many of the injustices and implement so many of the reforms that would improve our immigration system, in a way, that would enhance our national security, improve our country's fiscal situation, and obviously ensure that we're treating people fairly. And giving America the upside, the benefit, of immigrants who come to this country and create jobs and serve in our military and live in our communities and make the United States the great country that it is. You know, with regard to other clemency measures the president may be considering, what the president has said previously is he does not expect to essentially ram through any -- any pardons at the last minute. There's an established process and the president believes that's a process that's worth following. QUESTION: Let me just drill down a little bit on that. Given his appreciation, if you will, for history and the understanding of how his reputation would certainly be impacted greatly depending on who might receive some clemency, be that -- if you want to look back at Clinton and Marc Rich, if you look back at Ford and Nixon, how much of that is a consideration do you think for the president as he considers clemency for some of these higher profile people? 13:09:51 EARNEST: I guess you have to talk to him about sort of what -- to what extent history factors into his decision. What I know factors into his decision, is the fact, that we have worked very hard, particularly in the last couple of years, to stand up and expand the capacity of an existing process at the Department of Justice to consider clemency petitions that have been filed. And that has resulted in the president being able to offer clemency in the form of commuting sentences of more than 1,000 people now. That is more than the past 11 presidents combined and that is an effort on the part of the president to use his executive authority to reform some aspects of the criminal justice system that don't seem particularly just. 13:10:38 The president would have preferred a more sweeping solution to that problem that only legislation could bring about but that is not something that Congress was able to succeed in passing despite the fact that there were high-profile Democrats and Republicans who supported that principle and did even support some pieces of legislation. But it is another criminal justice reform -- common sense criminal justice reform that would be good for our economy as another victim of Republican dysfunction in Congress. And unfortunately there are numerous victims and that's one of them. QUESTION: You mentioned solar a bit earlier. How much of the growth and the use of solar power subsidized by the federal government? 13:11:22 EARNEST: We can get you the metrics here, but the performance of the loan program at the Department of Energy was remarkably successful. And I think the growth of the solar industry overall -- the fact that solar generation in this country has increased 30 times -- three, zero -- since -- since 2008, and I think is an indication that that is an industry that's taken off. That is an industry that is now not competing in the United States for business, but they're competing around the world. And that's -- that's a good thing for our economy. QUESTION: And the lastly, yesterday, it was interesting -- you said the kinds of people President-elect Trump has chosen to appear, have in many cases different priorities, different styles, and in some cases starkly different bank accounts. I thought that was a pretty interesting take by you. Obviously talking today... EARNEST: You're not the first person to make that observation. QUESTION: Perhaps not. You've heard the former Ford CEO is someone that is also having a conversation, perhaps with the president-elect. Does bank account matter, or was just a sort of off- the-cuff comment. How do you score that? 13:12:21 EARNEST: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, I was just trying to get you guys to laugh. And again, if -- if the joke requires explanation, it probably was not particularly successful. QUESTION: Last one I have for you. There's a very interesting person in the room. What have you been able to draw from your friendship with former press secretary who happens to be in the back of the room today and how are things changing? 13:12:44 EARNEST: If I seem a little nervous today, it's because one of my predecessors is actually in the room today. Look, Dana did this job for President Bush for the last couple of years of his -- of her -- of his presidency. Look, and she was widely acclaimed by people on both sides of the aisle for her integrity, her seriousness of purpose in doing this job, and she won a lot of admiration from people in the -- in Obama world by the way that she handled herself in the context of that transition in 2008 and 2009. That surely must have been a very difficult thing to, do given the -- the degree to which President Obama was promising to change many of the policies that President Bush had sought to implement. But she did a noble, and in some ways uniquely, American thing which is that she set-aside her own political views, and actually was committed to ensuring that some of President Obama's press staff could understand how the White House works and could get off the best possible start. And there is a tough learning curve when you walk through that door for the first time, and understanding exactly what the expectations of the press corps are, and understanding how to operate all levers of government in order to get the information that we need in order to come out here and make the president's case. But she gave us -- she was certainly more than an honest broker. She was somebody was determined to try to help us understand exactly what the job required and what resources were available to us to -- to do that job as well as we possibly could. And so that's why, you know, a lot of us have a enduring respect for Dana and in the way that she did her job and it's been fun having her around here today. OK. Chris (ph), go ahead. QUESTION: I know you don't comment on any specific case the ACLU is leading LGBT groups incline for a clemency for Chelsea Manning whose in the seventh year of a 35 year sentence for deleting classified information. Has served in jail time longer than anyone else for that offense. Will the president mute the sentence for Chelsea Manning? 13:14:51 EARNEST: Chris (ph), I'm not going to discuss individual cases. There is a process that's been established in the Department of Justice and for the way that those applications -- whether or not those applications have been filed and how they're being processed is a question you should direct to them. QUESTION: Manning is a transgender woman serving in a men's prison was initially denied, transition way of care (ph) before the Army agreed to it, and has a history of suicide attempts in prison. Would those be factors the president would weigh in deciding whether to grant clemency in this case? 13:15:18 EARNEST: At this point, I wouldn't speculate on what factors the president may consider. So, you know, there's a well established process for considering these clemency petitions, and I'd refer you to the Department of Justice for an update on where that may stand. QUESTION: (inaudible) the president has, of course, commuted a lot of sentences for a lot of individuals. Would there be some point at which they would stop? Or do you expect that to continue to happen right up until January 20th? 13:15:41 EARNEST: I would anticipate that the process will continue to run until the end. But, you know, this is a process that cannot be done overnight; you know, that these kinds of applications have to be filed well in advance, and there's a lot of background work that has to be done before decisions on individual cases can be rendered. So, I would not envision a rush to the exits here, but I would anticipate that the process will continue until the last day. OK? Jessica? QUESTION: A question on trade. The WTO is making a decision on Monday about whether China should be rated a market economy status. I wanted to see what the White House position on that is, and what your concerns are for the ramifications for U.S. companies. 13:16:24 EARNEST: Well, this is a determination that's actually made by the Department of Commerce. And so, we'll let the analysts at the Department of Commerce take a close look at the, you know, the Chinese economy and come to a decision based on the merits. OK? Margaret? QUESTION: Josh, real quick (inaudible) NDAA. The president will sign it as written? 13:16:50 EARNEST: I don't have a position on that to disclose at this point. But, you know, why don't we consult with our staff and we'll get back to you on that. QUESTION: On the C.R., apparently Nancy Pelosi just said she's going to oppose it. You've got the congressional ball here today. Are you going to be sending everyone home to finish their work? (LAUGHTER) EARNEST: Maybe they'll negotiate in their gowns and tuxedos. QUESTION: Well, some arm-twisting (inaudible). (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: That would make for quite a picture, wouldn't it? QUESTION: Is there going to be a government shutdown? (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: Well, maybe we should change it here for the end. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Are you confident there won't be a government shutdown? 13:17:21 EARNEST: Well, again, as I told Kevin, when it comes to predicting the behavior of Republican politicians in Washington, I'm not going to do that. QUESTION: Nancy Pelosi said she opposes it. 13:17:34 EARNEST: Right, but ultimately we've got Republicans in charge of the House; Republicans in charge of the Senate. And if they want to get any bill passed and signed into law, they're going to have to work with Democrats to get it done, in part because there are recalcitrant Republicans in the House that, many of whom appear opposed to any kind of C.R. So it's possible they may need Democratic votes to pass it. When you consider the well-chronicled and widely discussed rules in the Senate, it's likely that Democratic votes will be needed to advance the legislation. And of course, the bill has to be signed into law by a Democratic president. So, Republicans are in charge of those two branches of Congress. Congress has one basic responsibility. Well, they've got many basic responsibilities, but among the more important basic responsibilities is passing a budget for the U.S. government and making sure that the government can function. And it sure would be a shame to shut the whole thing down just a couple of weeks before Christmas. QUESTION: And on Syria, you said you're not -- you're hopeful, but you don't know about a deal yet. Riyad Hijab is the Syrian prime minister who defected and is now the political leader of the opposition that the U.S. and other powers recognize, had some blistering criticism that I want you to be able to respond do. He told The Wall Street Journal in an interview that history will never forgive Obama for what he had done to the Syrian people. He's raised their expectations and then he gave Bashar Assad the green light, talking about strengthening Iran's position in Syria, saying that Assad must go, and not doing anything to oppose him. How do you respond to that? 13:19:05 EARNEST: Listen, given the tragedy that has befallen his country, it's not surprising to me that he was using some rather pointed rhetoric to make his argument. But ultimately the president of the United States has one overriding responsibility, and that is to look out for the interests and safety of the American people. And that's what President Obama has prioritized over everything else. We -- we certainly have been deeply concerned about the plight of the Syrian people. And that's why the United States has devoted significant time and attention and resources to trying to bring that violence to an end. The president and the United States have played the leading role in the international community to reach the kind of negotiated diplomatic solution that will be required to bring that violence to an end. And there's just no military solution that would work. And I think my evidence for that is that there are some people who hint that the president should ramp up military operations, but there's not real coherent description of a military solution that anybody's really described. And I think that -- and I certainly don't mean that as a criticism of the gentleman that you cited, I mean that as an illustration of just how complex this situation is. And, you know, the president at every turn has, you know, put the interests on the United States first. That's the responsibility of the commander in chief. QUESTION: But to his point on history not forgiving the president, is the president certain that history will see his side of things, and his view of this? 13:20:56 EARNEST: Listen, I think if we know anything about history is that it's historians tend to disagree about history. And I think this may be an area where historians do end up quibbling just a little bit. But, you know, again, I think that the one thing that historians on both sides will acknowledge is the military solution that many people seem to wish for -- including people with the best of intentions -- simply does not exist; has not be presented for any sort of public consideration. And diplomacy can be hard, it can be frustrating, it can take far longer than we would like. And I think that there's probably no better illustration of diplomacy fitting that criteria that I just laid out than -- than with regard to the situation in Syria. It has been hard, it has been frustrating and it's taken far longer than we would like. But, that's the only solution. That is the only way we can bring this violence to an end. It's the only way we can address the underlying chaos in Syria. It's the only way we can expedite the provision of badly needed humanitarian assistance. And the United States has done more than anybody else to find that diplomatic solution, but we haven't found it yet. OK? Kenneth (ph). 13:22:21 KENNETH MOTON: Thank you, Josh. Leading up to the election, the president was quite vocal about President-elect Donald Trump's use of Twitter and how he communicated on Twitter. And you've said the president knows it's his responsibility to look out for the interest of the American people, look out for the American people and business. So, is the White House and the president concerned about the president-elect targeting certain businesses, i.e. Boeing, or individual American citizens on Twitter, i.e. the union leader of Carrier factory jobs that was in the news last week? Any concern, any thoughts? Obviously I'm sure you heard about the union leader being targeted this morning and the criticism there. 13:23:03 EARNEST: I've got lots of thoughts and as tempting as it is, I'm going to refer questions about the Twitter handle of the president- elect to the president-elect's team. 13:23:14 KENNETH MOTON: Josh, also (inaudible) yesterday and again today. But is there a message for those who came out of the shadows at the urging of this administration. Is there a message to those folks who are now nervous about what's going to happen after January 20th? I feel like the White House hasn't put out that message or spoken directly to those DREAMers who feel that their -- what -- the information given to the government coming out of the shadows is now in jeopardy. 13:23:42 EARNEST: Well, Kenneth, I think there are a couple of things about this. The -- the first is, that the White House has been in close touch with a number of advocacy organizations, you know, even in the aftermath of the election to talk to them about, you know, the facts of the immigration policy and to -- to try to try to offer some reassurance. But certainly, the president and his transition team have gone to great lengths to describe and explain the policy that we have pursued to the incoming administration so that when they begin the process of making some decisions about what our immigration policy should look like, they can have the benefit of understanding exactly what our approach has been and what the benefits of that approach are. We're also continuing to encourage Congress to take action. You know, ultimately the kind of executive action that President Obama has pursued, was largely pursued because of confessional inaction. We would much have preferred Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to capitalize on the obviously bipartisan ground that exists. To implement common-sense immigration reform that would strengthen our economy, that would reduce the deficit, that would strengthen our borders. And ensure, that we were treating fairly the hundreds and thousands of people in this country that are American in every way but their papers. These are hundreds of thousands of people who are brought to the United States as children and have grown up in America, and meshed in our communities, going to our schools, attending our churches, serving in our military. So the president believes that we certainly are a nation of laws, the nation of laws that should be enforced but we're also an issue of immigrants and our policy should reflect that, well. 13:25:36 KENNETH MOTON: And finally, when the president told CNN that the strength of ISIL or ISIS quote, "Wasn't on his intelligence radar," was he faulting the intelligence that he was getting and/or the failure of the intelligence? 13:25:52 EARNEST: Well, I -- the -- I'm glad you asked. The -- I know that some have perceived it that way, but the fact is back in September of 2014, the -- Director of the Office of National Intelligence Jim Clapper you know, told David Ignatius, a writer for the Washington Post, quote, "In this case, we underestimated ISIL and overestimated the fighting capability of the Iraqi army." He continued, "I didn't see the collapse of the Iraqi security force in the north coming, I didn't see that." So the president's comments to Fareed Zakaria for that documentary are consistent with the comments that you heard from the director of national intelligence more than two years ago, about how difficult it would have been to accurately predict the effectiveness of ISIL on the battlefield and the ineffectiveness of an Iraqi security force that essentially, had been hollowed out by the corruption and failed leadership of Prime Minister Maliki. Those are the facts and, you know, the president discussed in that interview not for the first time. OK, Mark (ph)? QUESTION: Yeah, Josh, I sort of (inaudible) question. I know we had this week in (inaudible) force space (ph) a speech framing the president's record on counterterrorism, lessons learned, et cetera. Does he envision a sort of more expansive farewell speech talking about lessons learned, what his legacy ought to be? EARNEST: There certainly is a possibility of that so stay tuned. QUESTION: After the holidays maybe? EARNEST: Not before the holidays. QUESTION: Not before the holidays. OK. QUESTION: We've heard a lot to say about the Pruitt appointment and you made those environmental points. EARNEST: Yes. QUESTION: But we've also seen Donald Trump meeting with Al Gore, most recently Leonardo DiCaprio and apparently he's had these long, wonderful conversations with President Obama so what - what were you saying your confidence level is that the environment will be a priority? How would you sort of describe your view of - I don't know, I guess what these signals mean? 13:28:10 EARNEST: Yes. Well, clearly the signals are mixed. I - I would assume that the kinds of conversations that the president-elect had with the Nobel Prize-winning former vice president were different than the kinds of conversations he had with the attorney general of Oklahoma who has been working hand in glove with the energy industry to call into question the science of climate change and to fight in a court of law tooth and nail against the kind of common sense rules that we've put forward that have strengthened our economy and improved the health of our planet. But how all of that comes out in the wash, so to speak, I think is something we'll all be watching over the next couple of years. But hopefully the metrics that I laid out earlier can be useful to all of you as you measure the results of the policy that the next administration chooses to pursue. QUESTION: Vice President Biden today talking about the campaigns called them ugly, course, dispiriting, a battle of personalities, not of ideas, and he said that he was embarrassed by it. What does the administration think of those comments and do you agree with them? 13:29:31 EARNEST: Well, I - I think you heard me say on many occasions, you certainly heard the president say on a number of occasions how concerned and even disturbed at various points many Americans were by the rhetoric and tone of the election. There was a willingness to engage in some rather cynical tactics that was dispiriting. But the election's over, the American people have decided. They cast more votes for Hilary Clinton but they elected Donald Trump president of the United States and - and the time for that debate is ended and the institutional responsibilities of the executive branch require all of us, including the president, setting aside his political preferences and focusing on the responsibility that he has to ensure a smooth and effective transition to the incoming president. QUESTION: Do you think the president agrees with Vice President Biden that this was embarrassing? 13:30:24 EARNEST: Look, I - there are plenty of times where I think all Americans, certainly a large number of Americans, were disturbed by what they saw but our opportunity to have that debate has - well first of all, there was ample opportunity to have that debate and I don't think there was any mystery in the minds of too many voters about who they were voting for but they decided. QUESTION: OK and we keep hearing more calls for briefings by members - members of Congress want to be briefed on that Russian intelligence on hacking so what - what is the status of that? 13:31:09 EARNEST: I can tell you that those kinds of briefings and the provision of that information continues on the part of the intelligence community to members of Congress who seek it out. They obviously have a direct responsibility to those congressional committees that are charged with providing oversight over certain elements of the executive branch. But there are other members of Congress who are interested in this issue who've also received briefings and information from the administration. And, you know, we're going to continue to cooperate with Congress. And there are some classified elements of this analysis that can be shared with some of those members. But if there are additional intelligence conclusions that can be released, I wouldn't rule out future releases -- public releases of information about this matter either. QUESTION: OK. Thanks, Josh. EARNEST: OK. QUESTION: Thanks, Josh. Yesterday, the Russian government completed the sale -- the sale of a stake of its largest oil producer, Rosneft, to Qatar and to Glencore. And there are some who are watching this deal saying that this $11 billion deal is a way that Putin has been able to get around sanctions. Do you believe that this -- this sale violated the sanctions -- the letter or the spirit? 13:32:27 EARNEST: Well, the thing that I -- there's not much that I can say about an individual financial transaction, even one as large and as significant as this one. The thing I can confirm for you is that the experts at the Department of Treasury that are responsible for constructing and enforcing the sanctions regime will carefully look at a transaction like this. They'll look at the terms of the deal and evaluate what impact sanctions would have on it. But, you know, how all that shakes out is something that you should ask the Treasury Department. QUESTION: And a question on Yemen. Human Rights Watch just put out a report saying that a couple of the airstrikes in Yemen in September and October by the Saudi-led coalition killed dozens of civilians, and the weapons that were used were American weapons that were given to the Saudi-led coalition after the conflict started. In the report it says that this -- these new findings put the U.S. at risk of complicity in unlawful attacks. Do you have a reaction to that report? 13:33:31 EARNEST: I'd say something, you know, similar to what we said before. Because we've heard reports like this in the past. And the U.S. review of assistance to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen is ongoing. And the United States continues to have grave concerns about coalition strikes that have resulted in civilian casualties. Even as the United States assists Saudi Arabia regarding the defense of its territorial integrity, we will continue to press the Saudi-led coalition to remediate the flaws in its targeting cycle and take other immediate steps to mitigate against future civilian casualties. We've spoken about -- spoken out about our concerns in the past, and we'll continue to do so moving forward, even as we review the kind of assistance that we provide to the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. QUESTION: And one more on the life expectancy in the U.S. There was a report that said that for the first time since 1993, life expectancy has declined or declined in 2015. I know you usually talk about all the ways that the economy and the U.S. political system has improved since 2008. What's your reaction to the fact that life expectancy seems to have gone down, at least slightly last year? 13:34:48 EARNEST: I haven't seen that analysis. But why don't we take a look and see if we can get somebody to follow up with you. (CROSSTALK) EARNEST: That's OK. (CROSSTALK) QUESTION: Donald Trump is going to Louisiana to stump for the Senate candidate down there. There's going to be a Senate race that concludes on Saturday. There has been some concern that Democrats don't seem to be, at least national Democrats don't seem to be rallying behind the candidate down there. Is the president aware of this race? Is he involved in any way? Does he have any reaction to how national Democrats are engaging in that race? 13:35:22 EARNEST: Listen, Louisiana has a peculiar election system that results in these kinds of runoffs occurring quite frequently. And it's a process that results in a pretty important election - like the one their expecting to hold here this coming weekend - taking place just a few weeks after a national election that captures everybody's attention. So, it's not the first time that there's been a discussion about whether one national party of the other is giving short shrift to the outcome of a runoff in Louisiana. You know, I'll - I'll admit that I've been a little bit busy here lately and I haven't been following the contours of the race. But, it will look (ph) - so I - I - I don't know to what extent President Obama has weighed in or supported a candidate. I know that there are some Democrats across the country that have been supportive of the candidate down there. But - but I can't speak to anything that the president's done. OK, Gardener? QUESTION: Just quickly, Josh, when is the president going to sign the 21st Century Cures Act and a(ph) ceremony? Can you give us any hints about that? 13:36:29 EARNEST: I can't at this point. I don't know that we've actually even received the bill at this point. Sometimes it - it takes a little while to work its way through the bureaucracy of Congress and arrive on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. But, the president does intend to sign the bill. He was obviously pleased to see a rare moment - a rare bipartisan display that resulted in the passage of this bill that will increase funding for those fighting opioid addiction, increase funding for the Cancer Moonshot that the vice president has been tasked with leading over the last year or so. So, obviously that's good news but I don't have any update on the president's schedule in terms of how he'll sign it, but I can ensure you that he will. OK, all right, John? QUESTION: On(ph) specific issues that, kind of, have the C.R. stalled right now, the big one looks to be the - the coal miners health benefits. Where does - does the president stand? Does he stand with Senate Democrats who emerged from meetings that they're united on that issue? 13:37:33 EARNEST: I'm glad you asked about this. The truth is the - it's quite cynical that Republicans in the Congress would adopt a position of only extending these benefits for the five month life of the C.R. These are lives and livelihoods that hang in the balance. And there should be bipartisan common ground to address the needs of these 20,000 coal miners who are slated to lose their health insurance at the end of the month. So, Democrats are ready to solve this problem and it's not lost on me, the irony, that Republicans are bragging about the kind of support they have from workers in coal country, particularly retirees in coal country, and now are prepared to just extend their healthcare for five months. So, we'll have to see exactly whether or not that's something that Republicans in the Congress can fix before they send the bill to the White House. 13:38:52 You know, there's one other aspect of the C.R. that you've heard me talk about before, but, you know, I think it merits repeating. When the problems with the water supply in Flint, Michigan first became public, there was a hue and cry among Republicans on Capitol Hill about how the federal government had let down the people of Flint, Michigan. The study, commissioned by the governor of Michigan tells a somewhat different story. The cause of this problem notwithstanding, there has been a robust response from the Obama administration to work closely with the Republican governor of Michigan, to work closely with the community in Flint, to expedite relief and response resources to the community. So you had FEMA passing out millions of bottles of water. You had the Department of Health and Human Services standing up new operations, so that additional healthcare could be provided to kids in that community could be affected. There other community development resources that were mobilized to try to support the community that was going to this crisis. The Obama evisceration even expedited some of the previously approved funding from Congress to address some of the more immediate infrastructure concerns of the community. But all along we've said that Republicans in Congress have a responsibility to do more about this problem then falsely accuse the federal government of malfeasance. They've got a responsibility to try to solve the problem, and there is a role for the United States Congress to play in terms of appropriating necessary resources to the community in Flint so they can fix their water system, so that the children that community in a drink and poisoned water. Finally in the fall, we did see a promise from Republicans that they would act on this. But according to what you read the newspapers - well let me just clarify one thing, that in the fall promised to act on this before the end of the year. But what we're seeing is that Republicans in Congress are actually planning to leave town for the year, tomorrow. and hopefully they're not going to do that without fulfilling their promise to the people of Flint, that have already endured so much and are just asking the United States Congress to do something other than falsely criticize their political opponents On the other in Pennsylvania Ave. QUESTION: ...take a stand on one or either issue to shut this down tomorrow night, to force Republicans... 13:41:48 EARNEST: Well I think it is our steadfast hope that it's not going to come to that, and that the kind of cynicism that Republicans have displayed with regard to coal miners, and the cynicism that they have displayed when it comes to playing politics with trying to solve the problems in Flint. It maybe a little of the holiday spirit will encroach. May be they'll even have it (ph) at the congressional ball tonight. Maybe getting all gussied up in the tuxedos and the gowns will remind those Republicans of the responsibility that they have to the lookout for the interests of working people while they're in Washington. We'll see. QUESTION: Are things stalled or dire enough that it might by Biden time, might be time to send the vice president up (ph)? 13:42:25 EARNEST: To borrow a phrase (ph). Look, I know that the vice president of the United States has certainly time and time again over his four decade career in Washington DC, and his eight-year record as the vice president of the United States weighed in to try to get Congress to look out for the interests of working people. I don't know if that will be required this time, but I know he stands ready to serve if he's called. 13:42:52 OK, thanks everybody, we'll see you tomorrow. QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) EARNEST: I don't have anything on that, but will follow up with you. QUESTION: ...all you've got on the schedule is the congressional ball? What's he working on (ph)? 13:43:04 EARNEST: Just a couple meetings around with staff today, but other than that, just spending time with members of Congress. QUESTION: ...will you tell us? (ph) 13:43:14 EARNEST: So not necessarily. (LAUGHTER) Have a good day, everybody.
PENTAGON BRIEFING W/ MORRELL
Pentagon Press Spokesman Geoff Morrell delivers the Department of Defense daily briefing. SLUGGED: 1300 DOD BRIEF RS31 71 AR: 16X9 DISC# 803 **FED TO NY ON 5120** 13:04:45 MR. MORRELL: Hello, hello. Pardon me for being a couple of minutes late. Good afternoon. Good to see you all. Let me give you a very quick rundown of Secretary Gates' schedule for the rest of the week, and then we'll get to the questions. Right now, he is in the middle of what we call the large group- plus. This is a meeting of military and civilian leadership upstairs here in the Pentagon. It includes the service chiefs, the combatant commanders and senior DOD civilians. Today's session, more than six hours in length, is the latest in a series of these gatherings, focused on the department-wide budget efficiencies initiative and developing the 2012 budget request. This is, as always, an inclusive process, in keeping with the secretary's commitment to ensure that those responsible for executing changes and reforms are involved in developing both options and recommendations. I would also note the key role played by the leaders of our operational military, reflecting the secretary's desire that they be able to weigh in and shape all aspects of these initiatives. 13:05:51 All of the department's leadership has been working hard to implement the specific measures we have announced and to develop -- further develop our plans to reduce overhead and transfer savings into real military capabilities. Bottom of Form Top of Form With respect to the budget-efficiencies initiative, a number of the reviews the secretary announced in August are near completion, and the secretary and other senior leaders will face a number of important decisions in the weeks and months ahead. Tomorrow morning, the secretary leaves on a four-day trip to South America, his second to the continent this year. He will first fly to Santiago, Chile, for bilateral meetings with the Chilean minister of defense, Ravinet, who the secretary hosted at the Pentagon in September. Chile is among our closest partners in the hemisphere, and we have, among other shared interests, a mutual desire to develop regional mechanisms to support disaster relief. The capabilities that Chile has developed in this area -- pardon me, in this arena -- were on full display to the world this year from its remarkable response to the earthquake and tsunami that struck in February to the extraordinary rescues of the 33 miners trapped underground for 70 days. 13:07:05 The need for a hemisphere-wide mechanism to more effectively channel disaster relief will be a key agenda item for the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas, which the secretary will attend this weekend in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. This will be the secretary's second CDMA, and he believes this forum can and should play a vital role in fostering cooperation with other governments and militaries in the Western Hemisphere. Finally, on the sidelines of this ministerial, the secretary will meet with his counterparts from Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil and El Salvador. Ann (sp). Q What is the secretary doing about the two potential legislative agenda items here in the lame duck, START -- new START treaty and Senator Reid's consideration of bringing up the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation? Is he making any direct lobbying or arm- twisting calls to senators? Bottom of Form Top of Form What is he doing besides supporting the president's agenda on START? 13:08:07 MR. MORRELL: Well, I think we talked last week -- or earlier this week about the fact that the secretary had placed a call to Senator Kyl. I believe it was Friday morning last week. And they had a lengthy conversation, and shortly thereafter Senator Kyl met with a high-level briefing team that was sent out from the Pentagon and Department of Energy. I think they had a three-hour meeting that involved Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller, who's spearheading the department's efforts on new START, as well as General Chilton, the outgoing STRATCOM commander, and I think a high-level representative from the Department of Energy. So that was a three- hour meeting that took place. And then you obviously saw the joint op-ed penned by Secretary -- Secretaries Gates and Clinton that appeared in Monday's Washington Post. So he is a part of the administrative -- administration's team that is making it clear to the Senate that we need to see action on this -- on this matter this year. It is of vital importance to our nation's national security, and we can't -- we can't afford a delay into the next Congress. So I think, you know, his position on this has been well known for some time. It's been underscored in the -- in the op-ed; it's been underscored in the -- in the conversation with Senator Kyl. I don't think anybody is at a loss for how strongly we feel about this. Q But his only direct call was to Kyl Friday? He hasn't called him back since Kyl said on Tuesday he doesn't -- he doesn't want it to come up? MR. MORRELL: They have not spoken since their call last week. Q (Off mike) -- on Senator Reid saying he would consider taking up the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation? Bottom of Form Top of Form 13:10:13 MR. MORRELL: I mean, our -- you know, historically, this department has not been one to tell the Senate how to do its business. That said, you know, we -- it is -- we are a member of this administration, and this president has made a call, as I understand it, to Senator Levin this week and Senator Reid, I believe, as well, making it clear that he wants to see the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" attached to the -- to the National Defense Authorization Act. And that's what we as an administration are pushing for. And we certainly see the merit in using that as the legislative vehicle to ultimately get to repeal. But we are usually reluctant, especially from this podium, to be telling the Senate how to do its business. There are many people here who bristle when they tell us how to do ours, so we try to -- we try to respect each other's responsibilities. Yeah. Q My question is about -- MR. MORRELL: Did you have -- Anne, do you have anything else? Q Well, I mean, just on that last point, I mean, it -- this has gone around a couple of times. I mean, this wasn't your original preferred strategy, to have this done legislatively now, and then now you back it. Is this sort of the -- is this the last chance? I mean, so you -- you see the -- you see the merit in this strategy, this legislative strategy, but if you get to the next Congress, there would presumably be fewer votes and you'd have to start all over again. Is that -- is that sort of what you're -- MR. MORRELL: Well, listen, I'm not going to be a political prognosticator and try to sort of evaluate -- you know, chances in this Congress versus chances in the next Congress. You referred in your opening part of your question there to how we've historically been opposed to this. Bottom of Form Top of Form I don't think that's true. I think what we've always been -- you know, the secretary came out in February with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs very strongly in support of the president's desire to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He has held to that position ever since. He has not wavered. That is his view. That said, he was very clear then as well that there is a preferred order in doing things. And the preferred order then was, and now is, let's get the study done. The study is very, very near completion. We are, you know, days away from December the 1st, at which time it will be provided to the Congress, it will be provided to you, so everyone can see the nine-month effort that's been under way to try to figure out the implications of a repeal and what needs to be done internally to prepare for that change. We're almost there. 13:13:04 So I -- that's what our focus is on internally. We are right now in the midst -- now, keep in mind -- I know there have been these calls to move this all up and release the report sooner than December the 1st. I would just remind you that the original plan here was for us to work towards December the 1st as the date by which the report would be due, and then the internal work would begin in terms of working with the -- with the services, getting feedback from the service secretaries, from the service chiefs, having the chiefs meet among themselves, having the secretary consider their input, and ultimately charting a course forward for the department. 13:14:08 We have compressed that timeline such that we are now operating on parallel tracks. Not only is the draft report still being finalized, but we are also doing the internal work that would have taken place after December 1st simultaneously so that we can, on December the 1st, not just release the report, but the secretary can state where he wants to take us with regards to this measure. Bottom of Form Top of Form So that's what we're focused on right now, frankly. And there is -- there is a lot of work to do between now and then, because we have compressed this, sensitive to the fact that there is -- there is a real desire for direction on this. Q Well, I understand the (timing ?). What I was trying to get at, not very well, is, does the secretary really, really want this to happen, you know, in the Senate -- yes, after the study comes out -- sometime between December 2 and the end of the session? And is he actively working to ask the Senate -- (off mike)? MR. MORRELL: With regard to the second part of your question, Ann (sp), he is actively working to get this done on an expedited timeline, because December 1st is expedited for us, because we are doing all the work that was to supposed to follow on simultaneously. So that is the focus of his efforts, in addition to the fact we're building a 2012 budget. 13:15:12 Oh, and by the way, we've -- you know, we're preparing for an Af-Pak strategy evaluation. So -- and also, we're -- are advocating, you know, passage and ratification of new - of new START. So there are a number of balls that we are juggling simultaneously. Just because we are doing multiple things at once does not believe -- he doesn't believe any less strongly in any of these things. I would just take you through the history again, Ann (sp). He has stated emphatically for months now that he's a supporter of repeal. You have also heard him very, very strongly lately on his real concerns with regards to court action being the mechanism that ultimately leads to a change in this law and policy. The fear there is that it would result -- it would be a very precipitous change and force us to sort of change on a dime with -- you know, with the flick of a light switch, if you will. Bottom of Form Top of Form 13:16:15 So we are right now finishing the report, working with the chiefs, working with the service secretaries, getting their input, finalizing this report, and at the same time, you know, formulating the way ahead for this department to proceed come December the 1st. All that work -- all that hard work is being done simultaneously. Louis. Q Geoff, yeah, I believe in a statement you issued on Friday and again today you mentioned that the report is going to be released in the fall. (Off mike) -- pages how long it is? And when did that determination come about? Because up until last week, it sounded like there was no indication that any of it was going to be made public, other than potentially, at best, an executive summary. MR. MORRELL: I don't know where you were getting that indication from. I mean, I think it's always been the secretary's intention to -- I think he views this as a very important work product. I think what he's seen of it thus far -- and he has had a draft report; he's reviewed and read the draft report -- is -- he is impressed by its thoroughness, by its professionalism. And I think it has always been his intention for this to be -- become a public document. I mean, Louis, you know, we're also not naive here. Even if we wanted to keep this a private document -- which we do not -- it would not remain a private document, sadly. 13:17:38 And that's why you also saw in my statement on Friday the fact that he was very disappointed and concerned about a -- you know, about a leak about the draft report. And I can just update you with regards to that. He has tasked the department's inspector general to conduct an investigation that hopefully will identify the source behind the Washington Post report, and hopefully then we'll take appropriate action. But I think it was always our intention to, at the appropriate time, make this public. Q So it won't be simultaneous -- MR. MORRELL: And not -- not -- not before December 1st to anyone. Bottom of Form Top of Form Q Will it be simultaneous with delivery to Congress? Or does Congress get it -- (off mike)? MR. MORRELL: The Congress will see this report on December the 1st, not before December the 1st. Yeah, Dan. Q Yes, on missile defense, are you -- MR. MORRELL: So don't go camped out up on the Hill, though. It's not going to be worth your while. Q I had a line-saver ready. MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q Is there an agreement now with Turkey on their support and participation in a missile-defense shield system for Europe, and Turkey then hosts, possibly, radars for that system? MR. MORRELL: You know, I -- Dan, I don't -- I can't tell you anything definitively. Obviously we've been working with the Turks for some time. It was in -- you know, the secretary met with his counterpart from Turkey when we were in Brussels a month or so ago. This was a subject then. I know it's been the subject of follow-on conversations with other members of the administration, certainly our ambassador to NATO. From what I've seen, frankly, in the press, it looks as though we've been making progress towards that end. I've seen that Prime Minister Erdogan has, I think, expressed willingness to host this. I don't know if they've come to a -- some ultimate resolution. But I would -- I imagine that, you know, obviously the goal here is that, come the NATO summit in Lisbon, Friday, Saturday -- I don't know which day this is being taken up -- that the alliance will embrace missile defense for NATO and that Turkey will obviously be a part of our unanimous support of that new initiative. 13:19:34 Q You don't have -- you're -- so you're optimistic that Turkey will -- and you're -- MR. MORRELL: Everything I've seen, everything I've heard suggests there is cause for optimism. I just don't have a sense of whether there has been any conclusive agreement reached on this. There may have been, in which case I'd really -- who'd be most up to date on sort of where we stand in our conversations with the Turks would probably be the -- my friends at the State Department. Top of Form Q I just have one unrelated separate question. On private security companies in Afghanistan, what -- is there some movement there? Are you having -- is there a dialogue with the Afghan government that shows that you -- MR. MORRELL: I think we've come to a -- that one, I think, we have come to a resolution on. I think, you know, there -- we've been working closely with the Afghan government, with President Karzai and his team, for several weeks now, and I think we have, you know, through this collaborative process arrived at what -- at a resolution I think we all think is very responsible and reasonable. And so I'd either point you to ISAF or to the Afghan government in terms of articulating the specifics of it. But I would say that I think it is also one that probably the NGOs, who are so vital to the development side of our efforts in Afghanistan, that they can be comfortable with; that it provides for security of major development projects, so that they don't have to fear any more than they already do for their well- being or that of the project as we move forward. But I think we have, you know, arrived at a good conclusion there. Yes, Tony. Q You mentioned that at the department Mr. Gates has got a number of important decisions in the weeks and months ahead. The Defense Acquisition Board is meeting Monday, or scheduled to, on the Joint Strike Fighter. Can you give some insight into what they will be reviewing and will that include this technical baseline review from Admiral Venlet? MR. MORRELL: The DAB Is indeed -- I love these terms -- the DAB is meeting Monday, as you said. But I would just underscore to you, Tony, that this was a meeting that was scheduled back in June, so there's nothing sort of -- there's no development that has necessitated this meeting. Top of Form It was put on the books in June. It's scheduled to take place on Monday. It will focus, yes, on the JSF, and specifically on the work that Admiral Venlet has been doing with his Technical Baseline Review, which is near completion -- not final, but considerable work has been done there. They will review that. They will discuss some JSF management issues for the coming year. But I would emphasize, Tony, that you should not expect any decisions to come out of this meeting on Monday. Any decisions with regard to this program, as important as it is, would likely be made -- or at least the major decisions, of course, will be made by the secretary himself, and likely as a part of the 2012 budget review. But as you know, Admiral Venlet has -- you know, was brought in as a three-star to -- and with a lot of, lot of experience, to really dive deep into this program, deeper than we've ever gone before, and find out as much as we can about any remaining challenges that we face with regards to it. 13:23:19 He has done this -- I mean, this is soup-to-nuts. This is 120 people; not taking anybody's word for anything but saying to them, "Show me the money, show me the proof, show me the data, don't give me your version of the world, I want to see your version of the world." And I think, as a result, we feel as though we have a much better understanding, including some new issues, of where we stand with this program and what might need to be done as a result of that. Q Is it fair to say that it, roughly, is going to recommend additional cost, or additional dollars and additional schedule slip in the development program? MR. MORRELL: I'm not -- I'm not going to say what it's fair to say at this point. This -- as I said, it's not done yet, and it will be -- any recommendations that come out of it will be dealt with as a part of the budget review, which is something, you know, the particulars of which, that we don't discuss publicly. So you just hold your horses in that front. Q (Off mike) -- I mean, a layperson watching this program would say to him or herself -- MR. MORRELL: This program or the JSF program? Q The F-35 program. MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q There was a JET estimate last November that resulted in a lot of change to the program. There was a Nunn-McCurdy breach, in Washington parlance, in June. Now is -- there's another review of this program -- three in, you know, one-year. Is this a troubled program that needs all these reviews? I mean, what's going on here, a prudent person would ask. MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, you sort of answered the question yourself with how you stipulated things. I mean, clearly, if it's a Nunn-McCurdy breach, it's having trouble, right? Q That was June, though -- (off mike) -- November. MR. MORRELL: Okay, but by definition, if we've hit Nunn-McCurdy, there have been issues with this program, there have been troubles with this program. We've acknowledged that for -- frankly, for the last couple of years. And the secretary in February undertook a major restructuring of this program. 13:25:37 13:27:28 And I can go -- we can talk at length about the measures he took, about the money he withheld, about the people he let go, about the people he hired and promoted, and then -- but one of the key components of this was tasking the new program manager to take a deeper dive than we have ever taken in this before so as to avoid future surprises about this program. That's what Admiral Venlet has been doing; that's what he has nearly completed. And as I said last time I saw you and just a few moments ago, he has discovered additional issues that are of concern. We are -- it is -- those issues may be discussed in the DAB, but there will be no actions taken at the DAB as a result of those. That -- those kinds of actions would be reserved for the 2012 budget process. Q But you can't give a sense of some of these issues, whether they're cost or technical related? MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, Tony, it's -- I mean, just to give you one example, we had a belief at one point that we had x number of lines of code left to be written. Q Software. MR. MORRELL: Yes. And what we found is we have more software code to be written than we had originally thought. So that's just an example of having, you know, gone under the hood yourself and taken a look at the engine firsthand, that we have discovered additional things that need to be done to get ultimately to where we want to be. Q You're 10 years into this program now, and you're telling me this year is when you're taking the deepest dive ever. You wonder why this wasn't done before the deepest dive. MR. MORRELL: Well, Tony, obviously there have been reviews of this program previously. I think at the time -- and frankly, I would -- I would -- I think it's fair to say the secretary is frustrated by the fact that they have not been as -- they have not fully eliminated the issues of this program. And he made it clear when he undertook the restructuring in February, when he hired Admiral Venlet, that he did not want future surprises. So let's get to a baseline now. Let's figure out where bottom is. And then come to me, so we can make decisions fully informed by all the problems that we face. But let me just also make clear -- and I know this bores some in our -- some in our audience, but I know it's of great interest to you, Tony -- let me also -- Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: You're absolutely right, and that's why I want to underscore this point. Don't mistake any of this as any sort of wavering on this program. This program is -- this will be the backbone of our tac air for decades to come. So it is of vital importance to this department. The secretary has believed that for some time. He continues to believe that. And, you know, we fully expected that there would be development issues in a program as sophisticated as this one. Frankly, every time we've met them, we've overcome them. But we want to have a full -- as full an appreciation as possible up front for what more still needs to be done so that we can plan accordingly, and that's what we're in the midst of right now. Yes, Justin. 13:29:41 Q Geoff, what does the date -- the year 2014 mean for the war in Afghanistan? Is this -- is this an aspirational goal for the withdrawal of most combat forces, or is this a deadline for withdrawal? MR. MORRELL: I think you have it right, Justin. You've heard our -- you've heard the lines clearly before. I mean, yes. I mean, it's the end of 2014, which is a goal that frankly was first set out by President Karzai during his inauguration, what, more than a year ago -- or a year ago, and was further reiterated when he went to London for a donors' conference, then again at the Kabul conference. And I think you will see it formally embraced by NATO this weekend. So, 2014 has been out there for quite some time as an aspirational goal for us to meet in terms of ultimately putting the Afghan security forces in the lead having primary responsibility for the security of their country. I would emphasize two things here. Number one, it is the end of 2014, so effectively it's by 2015; and that although the hope is -- the goal is to have Afghan security forces in the lead over the preponderance of the country by then, it does not necessarily mean, A, that everywhere in the country they will necessarily be in the lead -- although clearly that would be the goal, that would be the hope, that's what we would shoot for -- and number -- and B, that it does not mean that all U.S. or coalition forces would necessarily be gone by that date. There may very well be the need for forces to remain in-country, albeit, hopefully, at smaller numbers, to assist the Afghans as they assume lead responsibility for the security of their country. I've seen some of these stories that have sort of suggested that there is an inherent contradiction between July 2011 and the -- and the end of 2014. And I think we have always seen these as very much linked and consistent that you would, as the president articulated nearly a year ago, begin the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces come July 2011, based upon conditions on the ground, and then, hopefully, move the Afghans into increasing responsibility for their security. We're already seeing it, frankly. You know, we talked last week, or two weeks ago, about how at the time I think there were six out of 10 security forces in the -- in the Hamkari operations in Kandahar were Afghans. I think that number has since risen to seven out of 10. So Afghan forces, which have grown by roughly a hundred thousand over the past year, are increasingly taking responsibility for the safety and security of their people. And we envision that by the end of 2014 they will be able to do that over the preponderance of their country. Q And so if that worked according to plan and they had security of most of the country, how many U.S. and NATO forces would you see in country at the end of 2014 and the start of 2015, roughly, would you say? MR. MORRELL: I think it's entirely unknowable at this point. I don't think anybody could tell you with any -- with any credence what the force posture will be four years from now. It's just impossible to know. It just depends. Like, we don't know, for example -- here we are nine months out -- less than that; eight months, seven months out from the July 2011 date, and the conditions on the ground are not known to us now about -- you know, for July 2011. So we can't even tell you, for example, how many forces we estimate will be coming out or reinvested come July 2011, let alone, you know, four years from now. Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q Okay. After what we have seen this week, President Karzai's comments, how do you describe the relation with -- MR. MORRELL: Let me just -- hold on one second. I just want to underscore, as I talked about the growth of the ANSF, it was brought to my attention today also, because I think it's overlooked, and although it doesn't deal with us specifically, I think it's an interesting statistic that you may want to pursue: So if the ANSF has grown by a hundred thousand over the past year, similarly, Afghan civil servants. We have trained 11,000 Afghan civil servants since February. 13:34:10 So, much focus has been placed on the growth of the ANSF. And it's important. It is clearly the long pole in our tent in terms of -- you know, the surge was meant for two things. It was meant to reverse the momentum of the Taliban and it was meant to buy time to develop the size and the capability of the ANSF. We've had great success on that front, but we're also simultaneously clearly trying to develop the civilian capacity of the Afghan government. And I think that's a telling figure, that 11,000 Afghans have been trained this year as well. Sorry. (Joe ?). Q Yeah. After what you have seen this week, President Karzai's comments, how do you describe the relation with Kabul right now? Do you thing the Pentagon and President Karzai are on the same page regarding the special operations of the military, the -- (inaudible)? MR. MORRELL: I do. And I think, you know, it was useful for all of us to have the secretary of Defense get this question himself on Tuesday morning at a Wall Street Journal event he attended. I would direct you to those comments, which essentially said that, you know, President Karzai is our partner; we certainly understand what he was trying to express in that Washington Post article. And I think, you know, what Secretary Gates said is that he thinks that what you saw there was the leader of a country whose people have been at war for the last 30 years is frustrated by that reality. And that's perfectly reasonable and understandable. 13:36:01 And he longs for the days, and hopefully the days to come -- the days in the past and the days to come when our role in Afghanistan will be one primarily in the development phase, when we are back to building roads and aqueducts and reservoirs and canals and things of that nature, as we did in the '50s and so on. But we can't get there from here quickly. It's going to take some time till we are solely in that role in Afghanistan. There is still much more work to be done on the security front. And I think Secretary Gates is confident -- and I think you heard it from Secretary Clinton, as well -- that we can get there with President Karzai as our -- as our partner. He is the elected leader of that country. He will be the leader of that country for the next four years. And I think we both share an understanding of where we are and where we need to get to. I would also note, as you saw, I think, in one -- in an AP story today, that President Karzai met with General Petraeus yesterday. They had a lengthy meeting. It wasn't entirely one-on-one; I think people joined it later. But as I understand it, they had a very good discussion about the issues that President Karzai raised concerns about in The Washington Post. 13:37:14 And I think General Petraeus went through each of those issues -- whether it be night operations, private-security contractors, force levels, things of that nature -- and explained our mutual understanding of these things. And I think at the end of it there was a solid understanding between those two gentlemen about the campaign and, as it's been described to me, there was absolutely no daylight between them on this front. And I think you'll likely see that from President Karzai himself when he speaks in Lisbon at the NATO summit later this week. But, I mean, I'm sure you've talked, Joe, to our -- to my colleagues in Kabul, who have gone to great lengths to explain to you all, as we have done so with the Afghan leadership, precisely how night operations work. 13:38:21 You know, we have made extraordinary adjustments in how we conduct these things, mindful of the fact that although they are militarily necessarily -- necessary -- and I think clearly all -- President Karzai and everybody else in his administration understands that -- they are politically sensitive. And we're -- we understand that. This does put the Afghan leadership in a -- in a difficult position with its people. They are a sovereign country, but they have real security needs that have to be attended to. And night operations are, you know, one of the most effective ways of doing so. But nothing we undertake at night is done without full consultation with the Afghan government, with the Afghan military. They have officers in our -- in our operations center. They are involved in the planning from the very beginning. It goes up through their chain of command for approval. And on each and every one of our operations at night -- 80 percent of which, I would remind you, result in no shots being fired as we are apprehending suspects -- in each of these operations, there is a minimum of seven specially trained Afghan special operations forces along, who are in the lead when it comes to announcing -- you know, taking to the bull horn and asking families to leave their homes peacefully so that we can conduct searches for suspected individuals, and who are in the lead in terms of dealing with sort of sensitive situations, particularly dealing with Afghan women and children. So they are vital partners in this from the beginning of the planning process to the execution of these missions. STAFF (?): Geoff. MR. MORRELL: Yeah, let's finish up. Gordon. Q (Off mike) -- Geoff. There's a lot of focus on the 900 trainers -- right? -- going into Lisbon. And I'm just curious; I think Secretary-General Rasmussen said that, you know, we could get the trainers sometime, even by the end of next year. How much -- how important are these trainers? And I know there's a game of poker here at some -- on some level, but how willing would the U.S. be to kick in some of those trainers, if need be, quicker? MR. MORRELL: Well, the trainers are vitally important. I mean, we are -- as much success as we've had over the past year in growing and developing the Afghan national security forces, there is a lot more work to be done. And the way this system is developed, we are going to need more -- many more trainers, hundreds more trainers, very soon. So I would really, in this respect, point you to Portugal and Lisbon this weekend, and let's hopefully see some developments there, but they are vitally necessary. There's no way around it. And as for whether or not -- you know, we've stepped into the breach already with what was supposed to be a temporary assignment of -- I don't know. I think it ended up being 600 or so Army personnel who went over to perform a training function. 13:41:44 And you know -- listen, for example, this week -- not directly related to training, but the secretary approved the deployment of a battalion, an Army infantry battalion, which will go over to augment the Special Forces village stability operations, which ultimately is what's developing the Afghan local police, which everybody has great faith will ultimately be a game-changer in Afghanistan. So we clearly have, when necessary, ponied up. But we also -- and the -- our allies have done -- have been very supportive as well over the past year especially, the past couple years especially. But we need more help from them with regards to trainers. If -- we are -- continue on the glide path that we've been enjoying with regards to the ANSF growth. Q (Inaudible) -- the battalion like that, is that falling in that 10 percent? MR. MORRELL: It does, yeah. This would -- this would -- I believe is coming out of the flex that the secretary has. This is -- this was -- I mean, this is -- this is why, you know, all these silly stories you see from time to time about, you know, there being a cap. I mean, our commanders still very much have the ability to raise their hand and say, "I need x." 13:42:52 And I think every time General Petraeus has ever said "I need x," the secretary has given him x. So this is another case where he has said, this is -- we believe that the Afghan local police are very important, that we think they're having a big difference where they have been deployed so far. I think right now we have 20 districts certified. We've got -- and we've got, I think -- the desire now is to grow that to perhaps -- we got 20 -- we got 10,000 Afghan local police approved. I think the desire ultimately among -- with the Afghans and our command in Afghanistan is to double that, so you potentially have 20,000 Afghan local police. That's going to require more of our forces to help the special forces that are so key to developing these local police forces, which are roughly -- each district, I think, would have about 300 of these guys. Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: Hold on, I'll come back to you. Q Can I just clarify -- MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q -- the math on that? So you've used about 2,000 of the flex, if I remember correctly, and this would be how many more? MR. MORRELL: We'd have to get you a precise number, but, you know, it could be a thousand more. We'll have to get -- we'll get you the precise number. But remember, these are fluctuating numbers. I wouldn't get so caught up on: you've used 2,000, you've used two- thirds, you've used that. Our numbers are constantly fluctuating, based upon guys rotating in, guys rotating out, guys needed for a certain period of time and then not needed. But this was an identified need that had -- that will be met so that we can continue this -- the development of this Afghan local police program. Q Geoff, can I just clarify another thing on Gordo's (sp) question? So you have 10,000 police, local police? MR. MORRELL: Now, they have -- we don't have 10,000 now, but what we have -- the program has been approved to ultimately develop 10,000 Afghan local police. I think it is the desire of both the Afghans and General Petraeus to ultimately double that number. We're now looking at possibly a 20,000-person Afghan local police force. Q Is it concentrated in an area like RC East? MR. MORRELL: No. Q Or is it spread around? 13:45:18 MR. MORRELL: No, it's -- they have looked for -- it's all done very, very -- in a very calculated and strategic way, based upon, you know, if -- are there areas where we have a high concentration of troops but there are -- but we can't get them to -- and the -- for example, we've got a lot of focus, obviously, right now in the Kandahar area. There are, as we describe, "rat-lines," supply lines into Taliban in and around kalibar -- Kandahar -- that travel through areas that we don't have the resources to focus on now, but where we see a willingness among the local population to stand up and guard against them being used as a supply route to resupply the Taliban. And so what we are doing is putting these Afghan local police in areas that we think could have an impact not just on those communities, but also ultimately on the supply and movement of the Taliban. Okay. This -- as we go on, more hands are going up, which is problematic. It's supposed to work the other way. So let's -- we'll -- I'll go for four more minutes. We'll go to 50. And we'll see -- we'll go into the speed round. You've already asked. Let's go to Jayhawk (ph) here. What do you got? Q There's some report of -- about a possible nuclear test by North Korea. Can you comment on that? MR. MORRELL: You know, I've seen these press reports you speak of. You know -- you know, I've actually mostly seen press reports, frankly, due to this sort of notion of sort of building a light-water reactor and other things where they're undertaking construction here or there. 13:47:01 And obviously all I could really say to you there is, we watch the North very closely. We monitor developments there closely. We are trying, as we always do, to decipher real intent in this otherwise very secretive country. You know, if it's true that they are pursuing any one of these things, it obviously is of concern to us, and we would call on the North, you know, not to take any additional provocative or destabilizing actions and rather to engage constructively with its neighbors, particularly the South, and ultimately in diplomacy so that we can get to what our -- what we hope our -- you know, the goal -- all of our goal is, which is a denuclearized peninsula that is lasting and verifiable and so forth. So, anyway. Yes, go ahead. Q (Off mike) -- China commission put out a report which showed some stark U.S. vulnerabilities in the Pacific. I think it was four out of five bases not -- excluding Hawaii only, but that they were vulnerable to Chinese attack. Are you -- are you aware of this? MR. MORRELL: I have not -- I have not read the entirety of the report, so let me -- let me -- you want to chat after? We can speak about specifics, or we certainly have experts on -- who deal with these matters day in and day out, who can also edify you about any specifics. Q (Off mike) -- you know, given tensions in the Pacific region, just this -- (off mike). MR. MORRELL: Say it again? Q It's a pretty shocking report, given the tensions in the region. It seems that there's -- it seems to point out quite a vulnerability on the U.S. side. MR. MORRELL: I don't know what the vulnerability is you speak to, so I can't refute it. I mean, I find it hard to believe that we feel as though we right now are vulnerable. If we felt like we were vulnerable and there was a real threat that was potentially -- that we were exposed to, I am sure we would be taking requisite action. So I'm -- let me look at the report. I haven't seen it or talked to our experts who have seen the report. But I would -- my sense is, I want to take issue with your question, but I am not armed with the ability to do so at this moment. So, anyway -- yes, young lady. Q Any update on Secretary Gates' trip to China and -- MR. MORRELL: We're working -- we're working it; hopefully, for early next year. We're still working it. I don't have anything new to announce there. Q With China, military-to-military exchanges, any update on that? MR. MORRELL: I don't know that we've had any developments. I mean, obviously, we've -- I don't know if I have any developments there. Obviously, that is a -- that is a goal. That's something we're working for -- towards. You know, we want increased interaction, engagement, conversation across the board. I don't know that I have any to announce since the last time we spoke, though. Okay? Yeah, let's go. We have one minute here. Louis, you're not getting one. Go ahead. Q Yeah, just on Iraq for a minute. The secretary said a week or so ago that he was open to the idea of extending troop presence in Iraq. And since then, they've formed a government over there. Has the department had any kind of communications with the Iraqi government, or do you have any further insight as to -- MR. MORRELL: I think the Iraqi government right now is focused on trying to actually fill out their government. While they have come to an agreement about leadership, about the three key leadership posts, they have a lot of work to do over the next 30 days to form the rest of the -- you know, the key -- the rest of the key ministries. So I do not believe we have any -- have had any communication along those -- on those grounds. And I wouldn't expect it in the near term, as they have considerable work to do in terms of finishing the formation of their government. 13:50:37 I think what the secretary said the -- probably the last time he -- I can't remember the last time he said this, but he's said it, frankly, for months and months, is that we will -- of course we are open to having such a conversation with the Iraqi government at the appropriate time. But I think they have other priorities at this very moment. Let's do these two, and then we're done. Q Geoff, can you tell us why it is that the secretary's going to South America and not to the NATO summit? Doesn't the summit deal with matters that take up much more of his time? MR. MORRELL: I think the summit will be well represented -- you know, the United States will be well and adequately represented at the -- at the summit. I mean, you have the -- this is a head-of-state gathering. The president of the United States will be there. The secretary of Defense will be there -- pardon, the secretary of State will be there. So I think we are in more than good hands, at -- particularly for defense-related issues, to be represented by those two. We will have -- Assistant Secretary of Defense Sandy Vershbow will be there. He has a small team with him. But no, I think there is -- there are more than enough high-level U.S. representatives in Lisbon to do the job. And -- but I think this speaks to the fact, frankly, that there -- we can do multiple things at once, you know -- even though you're right, the preponderance of our efforts militarily have been in the Middle East and have been partnered mostly with Europeans in that effort. As you saw from our trip to Australia and Malaysia last week and by our trip tomorrow to South America, we remain actively engaged elsewhere in the world as well. We have -- you know, we clearly have increased our engagement, at least with regards to high-level visits and so forth and conversations in Asia over the last couple of years. And we continue outreach in South America as well and elsewhere -- Africa, elsewhere. But we can do multiple things at once. We can deploy high-level officials simultaneously multiple places around the world and still get the job done. Yes, go ahead. Q Two quick questions -- (inaudible). One, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, so much going on, and Taliban leaders are saying now officially that as long as one U.S. troop remains there, that terrorism or terror activities will continue. My question is, what role do you think the neighboring countries like India, Pakistan or even Russia will play after 2011 or '14, when all -- MR. MORRELL: Who's -- who's saying this, so long as one remains there? Q Taliban leaders there. MR. MORRELL: Is this the Mullah Omar Eid statement? Q Yeah, one of them, yes, you're right. MR. MORRELL: If you -- if you -- if you do want to decipher the Mullah Omar Eid statement, it is interesting reading from the respect that it clearly shows that they are having enormous issues with -- vis-a-vis our operations in Afghanistan. There is a clarion call to sympathetic supporters around the world for additional funding, clearly suggesting they're having trouble financing their operations. There is a call also for fighters not to come back to the safe havens, but to remain in-country duking it out as best they can, even though they're not adequately supplied. So I think -- and there's also complaints, frankly, about you all, about the media. They feel as though you've been co-opted by us, which I think you guys would obviously take exception to. But -- so to me, there's a suggestion that they have issues; that the operational tempo, that the additional forces, that the sustained, consistent, aggressive engagements that we have undertaken militarily are -- they are having an impact and they are feeling the effects of it right now. Q On - 13:54:09 MR. MORRELL: With regard to the region, yes, India, Pakistan, Iran, all of Afghanistan's neighbors are ultimately very important to the stabilization of that region. They all need to be playing a positive, productive, constructive influence on Afghanistan. Q And finally -- MR. MORRELL: Justin. Q Finally, if I may -- MR. MORRELL: Yeah, you've -- I think you've had two or three. Justin. Q How important are the plans and agreements that Russia plans to sign in Lisbon about opening up trade routes and possibly supplying more helicopters -- MR. MORRELL: All -- Russia has played a very constructive role with regards to our operations in Afghanistan. We have, as you know, developed a whole alternate supply line network to keep our forces supplied, and they were instrumental in us being able to bring in routes from the north so that we were not solely reliant on what are also very important routes through Pakistan. So they played a very constructive role there. They played a constructive role in terms of counternarcotics. They played a constructive role in terms of supplying Soviet -- or Russian-built helicopters to the Afghan air force, who are used to and most comfortable dealing with those aircraft. So I would, yes, point you to Lisbon next -- later this week. I think we will -- you know, we're going to have our first meeting of the NATO-Russia Council since the Georgia invasion, and hopefully we'll get more -- more movement out of that. Q My question was, are any of these plans threatened by a potential failure of the START agreement? MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, yes, in the sense that we have been working over the past couple of years to restart or reset our relationship with Russia. We have made real progress in a number of areas, particularly, as I just mentioned, cooperation in Afghanistan, cooperation also in sanctions against Iran, the latter of which could not have been done without Russian support. And in addition to all the reasons why it's important for verification reasons and important for our credibility on nonproliferation issues worldwide, it's also fundamentally important in terms of our credibility as a partner with the -- with the -- with the Russians on this issue that we be able to get this ratified this year. And that's why we are pushing so hard to get this done in the remaining weeks that we have with this Congress. All right, Louie, come see me later. Q See ya. END. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form
DOD BRIEFING
DOD / PENTAGON DAILY PRESS BRIEFING Pentagon Press Spokesman Geoff Morrell delivers the Department of Defense daily briefing. SLUGGED: 1300 DOD BRIEF RS31 71 AR: 16X9 DISC# 803 **FED TO NY ON 5120** 13:04:45 MR. MORRELL: Hello, hello. Pardon me for being a couple of minutes late. Good afternoon. Good to see you all. Let me give you a very quick rundown of Secretary Gates' schedule for the rest of the week, and then we'll get to the questions. Right now, he is in the middle of what we call the large group- plus. This is a meeting of military and civilian leadership upstairs here in the Pentagon. It includes the service chiefs, the combatant commanders and senior DOD civilians. Today's session, more than six hours in length, is the latest in a series of these gatherings, focused on the department-wide budget efficiencies initiative and developing the 2012 budget request. This is, as always, an inclusive process, in keeping with the secretary's commitment to ensure that those responsible for executing changes and reforms are involved in developing both options and recommendations. I would also note the key role played by the leaders of our operational military, reflecting the secretary's desire that they be able to weigh in and shape all aspects of these initiatives. 13:05:51 All of the department's leadership has been working hard to implement the specific measures we have announced and to develop -- further develop our plans to reduce overhead and transfer savings into real military capabilities. Bottom of Form Top of Form With respect to the budget-efficiencies initiative, a number of the reviews the secretary announced in August are near completion, and the secretary and other senior leaders will face a number of important decisions in the weeks and months ahead. Tomorrow morning, the secretary leaves on a four-day trip to South America, his second to the continent this year. He will first fly to Santiago, Chile, for bilateral meetings with the Chilean minister of defense, Ravinet, who the secretary hosted at the Pentagon in September. Chile is among our closest partners in the hemisphere, and we have, among other shared interests, a mutual desire to develop regional mechanisms to support disaster relief. The capabilities that Chile has developed in this area -- pardon me, in this arena -- were on full display to the world this year from its remarkable response to the earthquake and tsunami that struck in February to the extraordinary rescues of the 33 miners trapped underground for 70 days. 13:07:05 The need for a hemisphere-wide mechanism to more effectively channel disaster relief will be a key agenda item for the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas, which the secretary will attend this weekend in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. This will be the secretary's second CDMA, and he believes this forum can and should play a vital role in fostering cooperation with other governments and militaries in the Western Hemisphere. Finally, on the sidelines of this ministerial, the secretary will meet with his counterparts from Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil and El Salvador. Ann (sp). Q What is the secretary doing about the two potential legislative agenda items here in the lame duck, START -- new START treaty and Senator Reid's consideration of bringing up the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation? Is he making any direct lobbying or arm- twisting calls to senators? Bottom of Form Top of Form What is he doing besides supporting the president's agenda on START? 13:08:07 MR. MORRELL: Well, I think we talked last week -- or earlier this week about the fact that the secretary had placed a call to Senator Kyl. I believe it was Friday morning last week. And they had a lengthy conversation, and shortly thereafter Senator Kyl met with a high-level briefing team that was sent out from the Pentagon and Department of Energy. I think they had a three-hour meeting that involved Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller, who's spearheading the department's efforts on new START, as well as General Chilton, the outgoing STRATCOM commander, and I think a high-level representative from the Department of Energy. So that was a three- hour meeting that took place. And then you obviously saw the joint op-ed penned by Secretary -- Secretaries Gates and Clinton that appeared in Monday's Washington Post. So he is a part of the administrative -- administration's team that is making it clear to the Senate that we need to see action on this -- on this matter this year. It is of vital importance to our nation's national security, and we can't -- we can't afford a delay into the next Congress. So I think, you know, his position on this has been well known for some time. It's been underscored in the -- in the op-ed; it's been underscored in the -- in the conversation with Senator Kyl. I don't think anybody is at a loss for how strongly we feel about this. Q But his only direct call was to Kyl Friday? He hasn't called him back since Kyl said on Tuesday he doesn't -- he doesn't want it to come up? MR. MORRELL: They have not spoken since their call last week. Q (Off mike) -- on Senator Reid saying he would consider taking up the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation? Bottom of Form Top of Form 13:10:13 MR. MORRELL: I mean, our -- you know, historically, this department has not been one to tell the Senate how to do its business. That said, you know, we -- it is -- we are a member of this administration, and this president has made a call, as I understand it, to Senator Levin this week and Senator Reid, I believe, as well, making it clear that he wants to see the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" attached to the -- to the National Defense Authorization Act. And that's what we as an administration are pushing for. And we certainly see the merit in using that as the legislative vehicle to ultimately get to repeal. But we are usually reluctant, especially from this podium, to be telling the Senate how to do its business. There are many people here who bristle when they tell us how to do ours, so we try to -- we try to respect each other's responsibilities. Yeah. Q My question is about -- MR. MORRELL: Did you have -- Anne, do you have anything else? Q Well, I mean, just on that last point, I mean, it -- this has gone around a couple of times. I mean, this wasn't your original preferred strategy, to have this done legislatively now, and then now you back it. Is this sort of the -- is this the last chance? I mean, so you -- you see the -- you see the merit in this strategy, this legislative strategy, but if you get to the next Congress, there would presumably be fewer votes and you'd have to start all over again. Is that -- is that sort of what you're -- MR. MORRELL: Well, listen, I'm not going to be a political prognosticator and try to sort of evaluate -- you know, chances in this Congress versus chances in the next Congress. You referred in your opening part of your question there to how we've historically been opposed to this. Bottom of Form Top of Form I don't think that's true. I think what we've always been -- you know, the secretary came out in February with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs very strongly in support of the president's desire to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He has held to that position ever since. He has not wavered. That is his view. That said, he was very clear then as well that there is a preferred order in doing things. And the preferred order then was, and now is, let's get the study done. The study is very, very near completion. We are, you know, days away from December the 1st, at which time it will be provided to the Congress, it will be provided to you, so everyone can see the nine-month effort that's been under way to try to figure out the implications of a repeal and what needs to be done internally to prepare for that change. We're almost there. 13:13:04 So I -- that's what our focus is on internally. We are right now in the midst -- now, keep in mind -- I know there have been these calls to move this all up and release the report sooner than December the 1st. I would just remind you that the original plan here was for us to work towards December the 1st as the date by which the report would be due, and then the internal work would begin in terms of working with the -- with the services, getting feedback from the service secretaries, from the service chiefs, having the chiefs meet among themselves, having the secretary consider their input, and ultimately charting a course forward for the department. 13:14:08 We have compressed that timeline such that we are now operating on parallel tracks. Not only is the draft report still being finalized, but we are also doing the internal work that would have taken place after December 1st simultaneously so that we can, on December the 1st, not just release the report, but the secretary can state where he wants to take us with regards to this measure. Bottom of Form Top of Form So that's what we're focused on right now, frankly. And there is -- there is a lot of work to do between now and then, because we have compressed this, sensitive to the fact that there is -- there is a real desire for direction on this. Q Well, I understand the (timing ?). What I was trying to get at, not very well, is, does the secretary really, really want this to happen, you know, in the Senate -- yes, after the study comes out -- sometime between December 2 and the end of the session? And is he actively working to ask the Senate -- (off mike)? MR. MORRELL: With regard to the second part of your question, Ann (sp), he is actively working to get this done on an expedited timeline, because December 1st is expedited for us, because we are doing all the work that was to supposed to follow on simultaneously. So that is the focus of his efforts, in addition to the fact we're building a 2012 budget. 13:15:12 Oh, and by the way, we've -- you know, we're preparing for an Af-Pak strategy evaluation. So -- and also, we're -- are advocating, you know, passage and ratification of new - of new START. So there are a number of balls that we are juggling simultaneously. Just because we are doing multiple things at once does not believe -- he doesn't believe any less strongly in any of these things. I would just take you through the history again, Ann (sp). He has stated emphatically for months now that he's a supporter of repeal. You have also heard him very, very strongly lately on his real concerns with regards to court action being the mechanism that ultimately leads to a change in this law and policy. The fear there is that it would result -- it would be a very precipitous change and force us to sort of change on a dime with -- you know, with the flick of a light switch, if you will. Bottom of Form Top of Form 13:16:15 So we are right now finishing the report, working with the chiefs, working with the service secretaries, getting their input, finalizing this report, and at the same time, you know, formulating the way ahead for this department to proceed come December the 1st. All that work -- all that hard work is being done simultaneously. Louis. Q Geoff, yeah, I believe in a statement you issued on Friday and again today you mentioned that the report is going to be released in the fall. (Off mike) -- pages how long it is? And when did that determination come about? Because up until last week, it sounded like there was no indication that any of it was going to be made public, other than potentially, at best, an executive summary. MR. MORRELL: I don't know where you were getting that indication from. I mean, I think it's always been the secretary's intention to -- I think he views this as a very important work product. I think what he's seen of it thus far -- and he has had a draft report; he's reviewed and read the draft report -- is -- he is impressed by its thoroughness, by its professionalism. And I think it has always been his intention for this to be -- become a public document. I mean, Louis, you know, we're also not naive here. Even if we wanted to keep this a private document -- which we do not -- it would not remain a private document, sadly. 13:17:38 And that's why you also saw in my statement on Friday the fact that he was very disappointed and concerned about a -- you know, about a leak about the draft report. And I can just update you with regards to that. He has tasked the department's inspector general to conduct an investigation that hopefully will identify the source behind the Washington Post report, and hopefully then we'll take appropriate action. But I think it was always our intention to, at the appropriate time, make this public. Q So it won't be simultaneous -- MR. MORRELL: And not -- not -- not before December 1st to anyone. Bottom of Form Top of Form Q Will it be simultaneous with delivery to Congress? Or does Congress get it -- (off mike)? MR. MORRELL: The Congress will see this report on December the 1st, not before December the 1st. Yeah, Dan. Q Yes, on missile defense, are you -- MR. MORRELL: So don't go camped out up on the Hill, though. It's not going to be worth your while. Q I had a line-saver ready. MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q Is there an agreement now with Turkey on their support and participation in a missile-defense shield system for Europe, and Turkey then hosts, possibly, radars for that system? MR. MORRELL: You know, I -- Dan, I don't -- I can't tell you anything definitively. Obviously we've been working with the Turks for some time. It was in -- you know, the secretary met with his counterpart from Turkey when we were in Brussels a month or so ago. This was a subject then. I know it's been the subject of follow-on conversations with other members of the administration, certainly our ambassador to NATO. From what I've seen, frankly, in the press, it looks as though we've been making progress towards that end. I've seen that Prime Minister Erdogan has, I think, expressed willingness to host this. I don't know if they've come to a -- some ultimate resolution. But I would -- I imagine that, you know, obviously the goal here is that, come the NATO summit in Lisbon, Friday, Saturday -- I don't know which day this is being taken up -- that the alliance will embrace missile defense for NATO and that Turkey will obviously be a part of our unanimous support of that new initiative. 13:19:34 Q You don't have -- you're -- so you're optimistic that Turkey will -- and you're -- MR. MORRELL: Everything I've seen, everything I've heard suggests there is cause for optimism. I just don't have a sense of whether there has been any conclusive agreement reached on this. There may have been, in which case I'd really -- who'd be most up to date on sort of where we stand in our conversations with the Turks would probably be the -- my friends at the State Department. Top of Form Q I just have one unrelated separate question. On private security companies in Afghanistan, what -- is there some movement there? Are you having -- is there a dialogue with the Afghan government that shows that you -- MR. MORRELL: I think we've come to a -- that one, I think, we have come to a resolution on. I think, you know, there -- we've been working closely with the Afghan government, with President Karzai and his team, for several weeks now, and I think we have, you know, through this collaborative process arrived at what -- at a resolution I think we all think is very responsible and reasonable. And so I'd either point you to ISAF or to the Afghan government in terms of articulating the specifics of it. But I would say that I think it is also one that probably the NGOs, who are so vital to the development side of our efforts in Afghanistan, that they can be comfortable with; that it provides for security of major development projects, so that they don't have to fear any more than they already do for their well- being or that of the project as we move forward. But I think we have, you know, arrived at a good conclusion there. Yes, Tony. Q You mentioned that at the department Mr. Gates has got a number of important decisions in the weeks and months ahead. The Defense Acquisition Board is meeting Monday, or scheduled to, on the Joint Strike Fighter. Can you give some insight into what they will be reviewing and will that include this technical baseline review from Admiral Venlet? MR. MORRELL: The DAB Is indeed -- I love these terms -- the DAB is meeting Monday, as you said. But I would just underscore to you, Tony, that this was a meeting that was scheduled back in June, so there's nothing sort of -- there's no development that has necessitated this meeting. Top of Form It was put on the books in June. It's scheduled to take place on Monday. It will focus, yes, on the JSF, and specifically on the work that Admiral Venlet has been doing with his Technical Baseline Review, which is near completion -- not final, but considerable work has been done there. They will review that. They will discuss some JSF management issues for the coming year. But I would emphasize, Tony, that you should not expect any decisions to come out of this meeting on Monday. Any decisions with regard to this program, as important as it is, would likely be made -- or at least the major decisions, of course, will be made by the secretary himself, and likely as a part of the 2012 budget review. But as you know, Admiral Venlet has -- you know, was brought in as a three-star to -- and with a lot of, lot of experience, to really dive deep into this program, deeper than we've ever gone before, and find out as much as we can about any remaining challenges that we face with regards to it. 13:23:19 He has done this -- I mean, this is soup-to-nuts. This is 120 people; not taking anybody's word for anything but saying to them, "Show me the money, show me the proof, show me the data, don't give me your version of the world, I want to see your version of the world." And I think, as a result, we feel as though we have a much better understanding, including some new issues, of where we stand with this program and what might need to be done as a result of that. Q Is it fair to say that it, roughly, is going to recommend additional cost, or additional dollars and additional schedule slip in the development program? MR. MORRELL: I'm not -- I'm not going to say what it's fair to say at this point. This -- as I said, it's not done yet, and it will be -- any recommendations that come out of it will be dealt with as a part of the budget review, which is something, you know, the particulars of which, that we don't discuss publicly. So you just hold your horses in that front. Q (Off mike) -- I mean, a layperson watching this program would say to him or herself -- MR. MORRELL: This program or the JSF program? Q The F-35 program. MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q There was a JET estimate last November that resulted in a lot of change to the program. There was a Nunn-McCurdy breach, in Washington parlance, in June. Now is -- there's another review of this program -- three in, you know, one-year. Is this a troubled program that needs all these reviews? I mean, what's going on here, a prudent person would ask. MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, you sort of answered the question yourself with how you stipulated things. I mean, clearly, if it's a Nunn-McCurdy breach, it's having trouble, right? Q That was June, though -- (off mike) -- November. MR. MORRELL: Okay, but by definition, if we've hit Nunn-McCurdy, there have been issues with this program, there have been troubles with this program. We've acknowledged that for -- frankly, for the last couple of years. And the secretary in February undertook a major restructuring of this program. 13:25:37 13:27:28 And I can go -- we can talk at length about the measures he took, about the money he withheld, about the people he let go, about the people he hired and promoted, and then -- but one of the key components of this was tasking the new program manager to take a deeper dive than we have ever taken in this before so as to avoid future surprises about this program. That's what Admiral Venlet has been doing; that's what he has nearly completed. And as I said last time I saw you and just a few moments ago, he has discovered additional issues that are of concern. We are -- it is -- those issues may be discussed in the DAB, but there will be no actions taken at the DAB as a result of those. That -- those kinds of actions would be reserved for the 2012 budget process. Q But you can't give a sense of some of these issues, whether they're cost or technical related? MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, Tony, it's -- I mean, just to give you one example, we had a belief at one point that we had x number of lines of code left to be written. Q Software. MR. MORRELL: Yes. And what we found is we have more software code to be written than we had originally thought. So that's just an example of having, you know, gone under the hood yourself and taken a look at the engine firsthand, that we have discovered additional things that need to be done to get ultimately to where we want to be. Q You're 10 years into this program now, and you're telling me this year is when you're taking the deepest dive ever. You wonder why this wasn't done before the deepest dive. MR. MORRELL: Well, Tony, obviously there have been reviews of this program previously. I think at the time -- and frankly, I would -- I would -- I think it's fair to say the secretary is frustrated by the fact that they have not been as -- they have not fully eliminated the issues of this program. And he made it clear when he undertook the restructuring in February, when he hired Admiral Venlet, that he did not want future surprises. So let's get to a baseline now. Let's figure out where bottom is. And then come to me, so we can make decisions fully informed by all the problems that we face. But let me just also make clear -- and I know this bores some in our -- some in our audience, but I know it's of great interest to you, Tony -- let me also -- Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: You're absolutely right, and that's why I want to underscore this point. Don't mistake any of this as any sort of wavering on this program. This program is -- this will be the backbone of our tac air for decades to come. So it is of vital importance to this department. The secretary has believed that for some time. He continues to believe that. And, you know, we fully expected that there would be development issues in a program as sophisticated as this one. Frankly, every time we've met them, we've overcome them. But we want to have a full -- as full an appreciation as possible up front for what more still needs to be done so that we can plan accordingly, and that's what we're in the midst of right now. Yes, Justin. 13:29:41 Q Geoff, what does the date -- the year 2014 mean for the war in Afghanistan? Is this -- is this an aspirational goal for the withdrawal of most combat forces, or is this a deadline for withdrawal? MR. MORRELL: I think you have it right, Justin. You've heard our -- you've heard the lines clearly before. I mean, yes. I mean, it's the end of 2014, which is a goal that frankly was first set out by President Karzai during his inauguration, what, more than a year ago -- or a year ago, and was further reiterated when he went to London for a donors' conference, then again at the Kabul conference. And I think you will see it formally embraced by NATO this weekend. So, 2014 has been out there for quite some time as an aspirational goal for us to meet in terms of ultimately putting the Afghan security forces in the lead having primary responsibility for the security of their country. I would emphasize two things here. Number one, it is the end of 2014, so effectively it's by 2015; and that although the hope is -- the goal is to have Afghan security forces in the lead over the preponderance of the country by then, it does not necessarily mean, A, that everywhere in the country they will necessarily be in the lead -- although clearly that would be the goal, that would be the hope, that's what we would shoot for -- and number -- and B, that it does not mean that all U.S. or coalition forces would necessarily be gone by that date. There may very well be the need for forces to remain in-country, albeit, hopefully, at smaller numbers, to assist the Afghans as they assume lead responsibility for the security of their country. I've seen some of these stories that have sort of suggested that there is an inherent contradiction between July 2011 and the -- and the end of 2014. And I think we have always seen these as very much linked and consistent that you would, as the president articulated nearly a year ago, begin the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces come July 2011, based upon conditions on the ground, and then, hopefully, move the Afghans into increasing responsibility for their security. We're already seeing it, frankly. You know, we talked last week, or two weeks ago, about how at the time I think there were six out of 10 security forces in the -- in the Hamkari operations in Kandahar were Afghans. I think that number has since risen to seven out of 10. So Afghan forces, which have grown by roughly a hundred thousand over the past year, are increasingly taking responsibility for the safety and security of their people. And we envision that by the end of 2014 they will be able to do that over the preponderance of their country. Q And so if that worked according to plan and they had security of most of the country, how many U.S. and NATO forces would you see in country at the end of 2014 and the start of 2015, roughly, would you say? MR. MORRELL: I think it's entirely unknowable at this point. I don't think anybody could tell you with any -- with any credence what the force posture will be four years from now. It's just impossible to know. It just depends. Like, we don't know, for example -- here we are nine months out -- less than that; eight months, seven months out from the July 2011 date, and the conditions on the ground are not known to us now about -- you know, for July 2011. So we can't even tell you, for example, how many forces we estimate will be coming out or reinvested come July 2011, let alone, you know, four years from now. Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q Okay. After what we have seen this week, President Karzai's comments, how do you describe the relation with -- MR. MORRELL: Let me just -- hold on one second. I just want to underscore, as I talked about the growth of the ANSF, it was brought to my attention today also, because I think it's overlooked, and although it doesn't deal with us specifically, I think it's an interesting statistic that you may want to pursue: So if the ANSF has grown by a hundred thousand over the past year, similarly, Afghan civil servants. We have trained 11,000 Afghan civil servants since February. 13:34:10 So, much focus has been placed on the growth of the ANSF. And it's important. It is clearly the long pole in our tent in terms of -- you know, the surge was meant for two things. It was meant to reverse the momentum of the Taliban and it was meant to buy time to develop the size and the capability of the ANSF. We've had great success on that front, but we're also simultaneously clearly trying to develop the civilian capacity of the Afghan government. And I think that's a telling figure, that 11,000 Afghans have been trained this year as well. Sorry. (Joe ?). Q Yeah. After what you have seen this week, President Karzai's comments, how do you describe the relation with Kabul right now? Do you thing the Pentagon and President Karzai are on the same page regarding the special operations of the military, the -- (inaudible)? MR. MORRELL: I do. And I think, you know, it was useful for all of us to have the secretary of Defense get this question himself on Tuesday morning at a Wall Street Journal event he attended. I would direct you to those comments, which essentially said that, you know, President Karzai is our partner; we certainly understand what he was trying to express in that Washington Post article. And I think, you know, what Secretary Gates said is that he thinks that what you saw there was the leader of a country whose people have been at war for the last 30 years is frustrated by that reality. And that's perfectly reasonable and understandable. 13:36:01 And he longs for the days, and hopefully the days to come -- the days in the past and the days to come when our role in Afghanistan will be one primarily in the development phase, when we are back to building roads and aqueducts and reservoirs and canals and things of that nature, as we did in the '50s and so on. But we can't get there from here quickly. It's going to take some time till we are solely in that role in Afghanistan. There is still much more work to be done on the security front. And I think Secretary Gates is confident -- and I think you heard it from Secretary Clinton, as well -- that we can get there with President Karzai as our -- as our partner. He is the elected leader of that country. He will be the leader of that country for the next four years. And I think we both share an understanding of where we are and where we need to get to. I would also note, as you saw, I think, in one -- in an AP story today, that President Karzai met with General Petraeus yesterday. They had a lengthy meeting. It wasn't entirely one-on-one; I think people joined it later. But as I understand it, they had a very good discussion about the issues that President Karzai raised concerns about in The Washington Post. 13:37:14 And I think General Petraeus went through each of those issues -- whether it be night operations, private-security contractors, force levels, things of that nature -- and explained our mutual understanding of these things. And I think at the end of it there was a solid understanding between those two gentlemen about the campaign and, as it's been described to me, there was absolutely no daylight between them on this front. And I think you'll likely see that from President Karzai himself when he speaks in Lisbon at the NATO summit later this week. But, I mean, I'm sure you've talked, Joe, to our -- to my colleagues in Kabul, who have gone to great lengths to explain to you all, as we have done so with the Afghan leadership, precisely how night operations work. 13:38:21 You know, we have made extraordinary adjustments in how we conduct these things, mindful of the fact that although they are militarily necessarily -- necessary -- and I think clearly all -- President Karzai and everybody else in his administration understands that -- they are politically sensitive. And we're -- we understand that. This does put the Afghan leadership in a -- in a difficult position with its people. They are a sovereign country, but they have real security needs that have to be attended to. And night operations are, you know, one of the most effective ways of doing so. But nothing we undertake at night is done without full consultation with the Afghan government, with the Afghan military. They have officers in our -- in our operations center. They are involved in the planning from the very beginning. It goes up through their chain of command for approval. And on each and every one of our operations at night -- 80 percent of which, I would remind you, result in no shots being fired as we are apprehending suspects -- in each of these operations, there is a minimum of seven specially trained Afghan special operations forces along, who are in the lead when it comes to announcing -- you know, taking to the bull horn and asking families to leave their homes peacefully so that we can conduct searches for suspected individuals, and who are in the lead in terms of dealing with sort of sensitive situations, particularly dealing with Afghan women and children. So they are vital partners in this from the beginning of the planning process to the execution of these missions. STAFF (?): Geoff. MR. MORRELL: Yeah, let's finish up. Gordon. Q (Off mike) -- Geoff. There's a lot of focus on the 900 trainers -- right? -- going into Lisbon. And I'm just curious; I think Secretary-General Rasmussen said that, you know, we could get the trainers sometime, even by the end of next year. How much -- how important are these trainers? And I know there's a game of poker here at some -- on some level, but how willing would the U.S. be to kick in some of those trainers, if need be, quicker? MR. MORRELL: Well, the trainers are vitally important. I mean, we are -- as much success as we've had over the past year in growing and developing the Afghan national security forces, there is a lot more work to be done. And the way this system is developed, we are going to need more -- many more trainers, hundreds more trainers, very soon. So I would really, in this respect, point you to Portugal and Lisbon this weekend, and let's hopefully see some developments there, but they are vitally necessary. There's no way around it. And as for whether or not -- you know, we've stepped into the breach already with what was supposed to be a temporary assignment of -- I don't know. I think it ended up being 600 or so Army personnel who went over to perform a training function. 13:41:44 And you know -- listen, for example, this week -- not directly related to training, but the secretary approved the deployment of a battalion, an Army infantry battalion, which will go over to augment the Special Forces village stability operations, which ultimately is what's developing the Afghan local police, which everybody has great faith will ultimately be a game-changer in Afghanistan. So we clearly have, when necessary, ponied up. But we also -- and the -- our allies have done -- have been very supportive as well over the past year especially, the past couple years especially. But we need more help from them with regards to trainers. If -- we are -- continue on the glide path that we've been enjoying with regards to the ANSF growth. Q (Inaudible) -- the battalion like that, is that falling in that 10 percent? MR. MORRELL: It does, yeah. This would -- this would -- I believe is coming out of the flex that the secretary has. This is -- this was -- I mean, this is -- this is why, you know, all these silly stories you see from time to time about, you know, there being a cap. I mean, our commanders still very much have the ability to raise their hand and say, "I need x." 13:42:52 And I think every time General Petraeus has ever said "I need x," the secretary has given him x. So this is another case where he has said, this is -- we believe that the Afghan local police are very important, that we think they're having a big difference where they have been deployed so far. I think right now we have 20 districts certified. We've got -- and we've got, I think -- the desire now is to grow that to perhaps -- we got 20 -- we got 10,000 Afghan local police approved. I think the desire ultimately among -- with the Afghans and our command in Afghanistan is to double that, so you potentially have 20,000 Afghan local police. That's going to require more of our forces to help the special forces that are so key to developing these local police forces, which are roughly -- each district, I think, would have about 300 of these guys. Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: Hold on, I'll come back to you. Q Can I just clarify -- MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q -- the math on that? So you've used about 2,000 of the flex, if I remember correctly, and this would be how many more? MR. MORRELL: We'd have to get you a precise number, but, you know, it could be a thousand more. We'll have to get -- we'll get you the precise number. But remember, these are fluctuating numbers. I wouldn't get so caught up on: you've used 2,000, you've used two- thirds, you've used that. Our numbers are constantly fluctuating, based upon guys rotating in, guys rotating out, guys needed for a certain period of time and then not needed. But this was an identified need that had -- that will be met so that we can continue this -- the development of this Afghan local police program. Q Geoff, can I just clarify another thing on Gordo's (sp) question? So you have 10,000 police, local police? MR. MORRELL: Now, they have -- we don't have 10,000 now, but what we have -- the program has been approved to ultimately develop 10,000 Afghan local police. I think it is the desire of both the Afghans and General Petraeus to ultimately double that number. We're now looking at possibly a 20,000-person Afghan local police force. Q Is it concentrated in an area like RC East? MR. MORRELL: No. Q Or is it spread around? 13:45:18 MR. MORRELL: No, it's -- they have looked for -- it's all done very, very -- in a very calculated and strategic way, based upon, you know, if -- are there areas where we have a high concentration of troops but there are -- but we can't get them to -- and the -- for example, we've got a lot of focus, obviously, right now in the Kandahar area. There are, as we describe, "rat-lines," supply lines into Taliban in and around kalibar -- Kandahar -- that travel through areas that we don't have the resources to focus on now, but where we see a willingness among the local population to stand up and guard against them being used as a supply route to resupply the Taliban. And so what we are doing is putting these Afghan local police in areas that we think could have an impact not just on those communities, but also ultimately on the supply and movement of the Taliban. Okay. This -- as we go on, more hands are going up, which is problematic. It's supposed to work the other way. So let's -- we'll -- I'll go for four more minutes. We'll go to 50. And we'll see -- we'll go into the speed round. You've already asked. Let's go to Jayhawk (ph) here. What do you got? Q There's some report of -- about a possible nuclear test by North Korea. Can you comment on that? MR. MORRELL: You know, I've seen these press reports you speak of. You know -- you know, I've actually mostly seen press reports, frankly, due to this sort of notion of sort of building a light-water reactor and other things where they're undertaking construction here or there. 13:47:01 And obviously all I could really say to you there is, we watch the North very closely. We monitor developments there closely. We are trying, as we always do, to decipher real intent in this otherwise very secretive country. You know, if it's true that they are pursuing any one of these things, it obviously is of concern to us, and we would call on the North, you know, not to take any additional provocative or destabilizing actions and rather to engage constructively with its neighbors, particularly the South, and ultimately in diplomacy so that we can get to what our -- what we hope our -- you know, the goal -- all of our goal is, which is a denuclearized peninsula that is lasting and verifiable and so forth. So, anyway. Yes, go ahead. Q (Off mike) -- China commission put out a report which showed some stark U.S. vulnerabilities in the Pacific. I think it was four out of five bases not -- excluding Hawaii only, but that they were vulnerable to Chinese attack. Are you -- are you aware of this? MR. MORRELL: I have not -- I have not read the entirety of the report, so let me -- let me -- you want to chat after? We can speak about specifics, or we certainly have experts on -- who deal with these matters day in and day out, who can also edify you about any specifics. Q (Off mike) -- you know, given tensions in the Pacific region, just this -- (off mike). MR. MORRELL: Say it again? Q It's a pretty shocking report, given the tensions in the region. It seems that there's -- it seems to point out quite a vulnerability on the U.S. side. MR. MORRELL: I don't know what the vulnerability is you speak to, so I can't refute it. I mean, I find it hard to believe that we feel as though we right now are vulnerable. If we felt like we were vulnerable and there was a real threat that was potentially -- that we were exposed to, I am sure we would be taking requisite action. So I'm -- let me look at the report. I haven't seen it or talked to our experts who have seen the report. But I would -- my sense is, I want to take issue with your question, but I am not armed with the ability to do so at this moment. So, anyway -- yes, young lady. Q Any update on Secretary Gates' trip to China and -- MR. MORRELL: We're working -- we're working it; hopefully, for early next year. We're still working it. I don't have anything new to announce there. Q With China, military-to-military exchanges, any update on that? MR. MORRELL: I don't know that we've had any developments. I mean, obviously, we've -- I don't know if I have any developments there. Obviously, that is a -- that is a goal. That's something we're working for -- towards. You know, we want increased interaction, engagement, conversation across the board. I don't know that I have any to announce since the last time we spoke, though. Okay? Yeah, let's go. We have one minute here. Louis, you're not getting one. Go ahead. Q Yeah, just on Iraq for a minute. The secretary said a week or so ago that he was open to the idea of extending troop presence in Iraq. And since then, they've formed a government over there. Has the department had any kind of communications with the Iraqi government, or do you have any further insight as to -- MR. MORRELL: I think the Iraqi government right now is focused on trying to actually fill out their government. While they have come to an agreement about leadership, about the three key leadership posts, they have a lot of work to do over the next 30 days to form the rest of the -- you know, the key -- the rest of the key ministries. So I do not believe we have any -- have had any communication along those -- on those grounds. And I wouldn't expect it in the near term, as they have considerable work to do in terms of finishing the formation of their government. 13:50:37 I think what the secretary said the -- probably the last time he -- I can't remember the last time he said this, but he's said it, frankly, for months and months, is that we will -- of course we are open to having such a conversation with the Iraqi government at the appropriate time. But I think they have other priorities at this very moment. Let's do these two, and then we're done. Q Geoff, can you tell us why it is that the secretary's going to South America and not to the NATO summit? Doesn't the summit deal with matters that take up much more of his time? MR. MORRELL: I think the summit will be well represented -- you know, the United States will be well and adequately represented at the -- at the summit. I mean, you have the -- this is a head-of-state gathering. The president of the United States will be there. The secretary of Defense will be there -- pardon, the secretary of State will be there. So I think we are in more than good hands, at -- particularly for defense-related issues, to be represented by those two. We will have -- Assistant Secretary of Defense Sandy Vershbow will be there. He has a small team with him. But no, I think there is -- there are more than enough high-level U.S. representatives in Lisbon to do the job. And -- but I think this speaks to the fact, frankly, that there -- we can do multiple things at once, you know -- even though you're right, the preponderance of our efforts militarily have been in the Middle East and have been partnered mostly with Europeans in that effort. As you saw from our trip to Australia and Malaysia last week and by our trip tomorrow to South America, we remain actively engaged elsewhere in the world as well. We have -- you know, we clearly have increased our engagement, at least with regards to high-level visits and so forth and conversations in Asia over the last couple of years. And we continue outreach in South America as well and elsewhere -- Africa, elsewhere. But we can do multiple things at once. We can deploy high-level officials simultaneously multiple places around the world and still get the job done. Yes, go ahead. Q Two quick questions -- (inaudible). One, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, so much going on, and Taliban leaders are saying now officially that as long as one U.S. troop remains there, that terrorism or terror activities will continue. My question is, what role do you think the neighboring countries like India, Pakistan or even Russia will play after 2011 or '14, when all -- MR. MORRELL: Who's -- who's saying this, so long as one remains there? Q Taliban leaders there. MR. MORRELL: Is this the Mullah Omar Eid statement? Q Yeah, one of them, yes, you're right. MR. MORRELL: If you -- if you -- if you do want to decipher the Mullah Omar Eid statement, it is interesting reading from the respect that it clearly shows that they are having enormous issues with -- vis-a-vis our operations in Afghanistan. There is a clarion call to sympathetic supporters around the world for additional funding, clearly suggesting they're having trouble financing their operations. There is a call also for fighters not to come back to the safe havens, but to remain in-country duking it out as best they can, even though they're not adequately supplied. So I think -- and there's also complaints, frankly, about you all, about the media. They feel as though you've been co-opted by us, which I think you guys would obviously take exception to. But -- so to me, there's a suggestion that they have issues; that the operational tempo, that the additional forces, that the sustained, consistent, aggressive engagements that we have undertaken militarily are -- they are having an impact and they are feeling the effects of it right now. Q On - 13:54:09 MR. MORRELL: With regard to the region, yes, India, Pakistan, Iran, all of Afghanistan's neighbors are ultimately very important to the stabilization of that region. They all need to be playing a positive, productive, constructive influence on Afghanistan. Q And finally -- MR. MORRELL: Justin. Q Finally, if I may -- MR. MORRELL: Yeah, you've -- I think you've had two or three. Justin. Q How important are the plans and agreements that Russia plans to sign in Lisbon about opening up trade routes and possibly supplying more helicopters -- MR. MORRELL: All -- Russia has played a very constructive role with regards to our operations in Afghanistan. We have, as you know, developed a whole alternate supply line network to keep our forces supplied, and they were instrumental in us being able to bring in routes from the north so that we were not solely reliant on what are also very important routes through Pakistan. So they played a very constructive role there. They played a constructive role in terms of counternarcotics. They played a constructive role in terms of supplying Soviet -- or Russian-built helicopters to the Afghan air force, who are used to and most comfortable dealing with those aircraft. So I would, yes, point you to Lisbon next -- later this week. I think we will -- you know, we're going to have our first meeting of the NATO-Russia Council since the Georgia invasion, and hopefully we'll get more -- more movement out of that. Q My question was, are any of these plans threatened by a potential failure of the START agreement? MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, yes, in the sense that we have been working over the past couple of years to restart or reset our relationship with Russia. We have made real progress in a number of areas, particularly, as I just mentioned, cooperation in Afghanistan, cooperation also in sanctions against Iran, the latter of which could not have been done without Russian support. And in addition to all the reasons why it's important for verification reasons and important for our credibility on nonproliferation issues worldwide, it's also fundamentally important in terms of our credibility as a partner with the -- with the -- with the Russians on this issue that we be able to get this ratified this year. And that's why we are pushing so hard to get this done in the remaining weeks that we have with this Congress. All right, Louie, come see me later. Q See ya. END. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form ---------------------------------------------------------------
DOD BRIEFING
DOD / PENTAGON DAILY PRESS BRIEFING Pentagon Press Spokesman Geoff Morrell delivers the Department of Defense daily briefing. SLUGGED: 1300 DOD BRIEF RS31 71 AR: 16X9 DISC# 803 **FED TO NY ON 5120** 13:04:45 MR. MORRELL: Hello, hello. Pardon me for being a couple of minutes late. Good afternoon. Good to see you all. Let me give you a very quick rundown of Secretary Gates' schedule for the rest of the week, and then we'll get to the questions. Right now, he is in the middle of what we call the large group- plus. This is a meeting of military and civilian leadership upstairs here in the Pentagon. It includes the service chiefs, the combatant commanders and senior DOD civilians. Today's session, more than six hours in length, is the latest in a series of these gatherings, focused on the department-wide budget efficiencies initiative and developing the 2012 budget request. This is, as always, an inclusive process, in keeping with the secretary's commitment to ensure that those responsible for executing changes and reforms are involved in developing both options and recommendations. I would also note the key role played by the leaders of our operational military, reflecting the secretary's desire that they be able to weigh in and shape all aspects of these initiatives. 13:05:51 All of the department's leadership has been working hard to implement the specific measures we have announced and to develop -- further develop our plans to reduce overhead and transfer savings into real military capabilities. Bottom of Form Top of Form With respect to the budget-efficiencies initiative, a number of the reviews the secretary announced in August are near completion, and the secretary and other senior leaders will face a number of important decisions in the weeks and months ahead. Tomorrow morning, the secretary leaves on a four-day trip to South America, his second to the continent this year. He will first fly to Santiago, Chile, for bilateral meetings with the Chilean minister of defense, Ravinet, who the secretary hosted at the Pentagon in September. Chile is among our closest partners in the hemisphere, and we have, among other shared interests, a mutual desire to develop regional mechanisms to support disaster relief. The capabilities that Chile has developed in this area -- pardon me, in this arena -- were on full display to the world this year from its remarkable response to the earthquake and tsunami that struck in February to the extraordinary rescues of the 33 miners trapped underground for 70 days. 13:07:05 The need for a hemisphere-wide mechanism to more effectively channel disaster relief will be a key agenda item for the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas, which the secretary will attend this weekend in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. This will be the secretary's second CDMA, and he believes this forum can and should play a vital role in fostering cooperation with other governments and militaries in the Western Hemisphere. Finally, on the sidelines of this ministerial, the secretary will meet with his counterparts from Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil and El Salvador. Ann (sp). Q What is the secretary doing about the two potential legislative agenda items here in the lame duck, START -- new START treaty and Senator Reid's consideration of bringing up the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation? Is he making any direct lobbying or arm- twisting calls to senators? Bottom of Form Top of Form What is he doing besides supporting the president's agenda on START? 13:08:07 MR. MORRELL: Well, I think we talked last week -- or earlier this week about the fact that the secretary had placed a call to Senator Kyl. I believe it was Friday morning last week. And they had a lengthy conversation, and shortly thereafter Senator Kyl met with a high-level briefing team that was sent out from the Pentagon and Department of Energy. I think they had a three-hour meeting that involved Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller, who's spearheading the department's efforts on new START, as well as General Chilton, the outgoing STRATCOM commander, and I think a high-level representative from the Department of Energy. So that was a three- hour meeting that took place. And then you obviously saw the joint op-ed penned by Secretary -- Secretaries Gates and Clinton that appeared in Monday's Washington Post. So he is a part of the administrative -- administration's team that is making it clear to the Senate that we need to see action on this -- on this matter this year. It is of vital importance to our nation's national security, and we can't -- we can't afford a delay into the next Congress. So I think, you know, his position on this has been well known for some time. It's been underscored in the -- in the op-ed; it's been underscored in the -- in the conversation with Senator Kyl. I don't think anybody is at a loss for how strongly we feel about this. Q But his only direct call was to Kyl Friday? He hasn't called him back since Kyl said on Tuesday he doesn't -- he doesn't want it to come up? MR. MORRELL: They have not spoken since their call last week. Q (Off mike) -- on Senator Reid saying he would consider taking up the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation? Bottom of Form Top of Form 13:10:13 MR. MORRELL: I mean, our -- you know, historically, this department has not been one to tell the Senate how to do its business. That said, you know, we -- it is -- we are a member of this administration, and this president has made a call, as I understand it, to Senator Levin this week and Senator Reid, I believe, as well, making it clear that he wants to see the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" attached to the -- to the National Defense Authorization Act. And that's what we as an administration are pushing for. And we certainly see the merit in using that as the legislative vehicle to ultimately get to repeal. But we are usually reluctant, especially from this podium, to be telling the Senate how to do its business. There are many people here who bristle when they tell us how to do ours, so we try to -- we try to respect each other's responsibilities. Yeah. Q My question is about -- MR. MORRELL: Did you have -- Anne, do you have anything else? Q Well, I mean, just on that last point, I mean, it -- this has gone around a couple of times. I mean, this wasn't your original preferred strategy, to have this done legislatively now, and then now you back it. Is this sort of the -- is this the last chance? I mean, so you -- you see the -- you see the merit in this strategy, this legislative strategy, but if you get to the next Congress, there would presumably be fewer votes and you'd have to start all over again. Is that -- is that sort of what you're -- MR. MORRELL: Well, listen, I'm not going to be a political prognosticator and try to sort of evaluate -- you know, chances in this Congress versus chances in the next Congress. You referred in your opening part of your question there to how we've historically been opposed to this. Bottom of Form Top of Form I don't think that's true. I think what we've always been -- you know, the secretary came out in February with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs very strongly in support of the president's desire to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He has held to that position ever since. He has not wavered. That is his view. That said, he was very clear then as well that there is a preferred order in doing things. And the preferred order then was, and now is, let's get the study done. The study is very, very near completion. We are, you know, days away from December the 1st, at which time it will be provided to the Congress, it will be provided to you, so everyone can see the nine-month effort that's been under way to try to figure out the implications of a repeal and what needs to be done internally to prepare for that change. We're almost there. 13:13:04 So I -- that's what our focus is on internally. We are right now in the midst -- now, keep in mind -- I know there have been these calls to move this all up and release the report sooner than December the 1st. I would just remind you that the original plan here was for us to work towards December the 1st as the date by which the report would be due, and then the internal work would begin in terms of working with the -- with the services, getting feedback from the service secretaries, from the service chiefs, having the chiefs meet among themselves, having the secretary consider their input, and ultimately charting a course forward for the department. 13:14:08 We have compressed that timeline such that we are now operating on parallel tracks. Not only is the draft report still being finalized, but we are also doing the internal work that would have taken place after December 1st simultaneously so that we can, on December the 1st, not just release the report, but the secretary can state where he wants to take us with regards to this measure. Bottom of Form Top of Form So that's what we're focused on right now, frankly. And there is -- there is a lot of work to do between now and then, because we have compressed this, sensitive to the fact that there is -- there is a real desire for direction on this. Q Well, I understand the (timing ?). What I was trying to get at, not very well, is, does the secretary really, really want this to happen, you know, in the Senate -- yes, after the study comes out -- sometime between December 2 and the end of the session? And is he actively working to ask the Senate -- (off mike)? MR. MORRELL: With regard to the second part of your question, Ann (sp), he is actively working to get this done on an expedited timeline, because December 1st is expedited for us, because we are doing all the work that was to supposed to follow on simultaneously. So that is the focus of his efforts, in addition to the fact we're building a 2012 budget. 13:15:12 Oh, and by the way, we've -- you know, we're preparing for an Af-Pak strategy evaluation. So -- and also, we're -- are advocating, you know, passage and ratification of new - of new START. So there are a number of balls that we are juggling simultaneously. Just because we are doing multiple things at once does not believe -- he doesn't believe any less strongly in any of these things. I would just take you through the history again, Ann (sp). He has stated emphatically for months now that he's a supporter of repeal. You have also heard him very, very strongly lately on his real concerns with regards to court action being the mechanism that ultimately leads to a change in this law and policy. The fear there is that it would result -- it would be a very precipitous change and force us to sort of change on a dime with -- you know, with the flick of a light switch, if you will. Bottom of Form Top of Form 13:16:15 So we are right now finishing the report, working with the chiefs, working with the service secretaries, getting their input, finalizing this report, and at the same time, you know, formulating the way ahead for this department to proceed come December the 1st. All that work -- all that hard work is being done simultaneously. Louis. Q Geoff, yeah, I believe in a statement you issued on Friday and again today you mentioned that the report is going to be released in the fall. (Off mike) -- pages how long it is? And when did that determination come about? Because up until last week, it sounded like there was no indication that any of it was going to be made public, other than potentially, at best, an executive summary. MR. MORRELL: I don't know where you were getting that indication from. I mean, I think it's always been the secretary's intention to -- I think he views this as a very important work product. I think what he's seen of it thus far -- and he has had a draft report; he's reviewed and read the draft report -- is -- he is impressed by its thoroughness, by its professionalism. And I think it has always been his intention for this to be -- become a public document. I mean, Louis, you know, we're also not naive here. Even if we wanted to keep this a private document -- which we do not -- it would not remain a private document, sadly. 13:17:38 And that's why you also saw in my statement on Friday the fact that he was very disappointed and concerned about a -- you know, about a leak about the draft report. And I can just update you with regards to that. He has tasked the department's inspector general to conduct an investigation that hopefully will identify the source behind the Washington Post report, and hopefully then we'll take appropriate action. But I think it was always our intention to, at the appropriate time, make this public. Q So it won't be simultaneous -- MR. MORRELL: And not -- not -- not before December 1st to anyone. Bottom of Form Top of Form Q Will it be simultaneous with delivery to Congress? Or does Congress get it -- (off mike)? MR. MORRELL: The Congress will see this report on December the 1st, not before December the 1st. Yeah, Dan. Q Yes, on missile defense, are you -- MR. MORRELL: So don't go camped out up on the Hill, though. It's not going to be worth your while. Q I had a line-saver ready. MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q Is there an agreement now with Turkey on their support and participation in a missile-defense shield system for Europe, and Turkey then hosts, possibly, radars for that system? MR. MORRELL: You know, I -- Dan, I don't -- I can't tell you anything definitively. Obviously we've been working with the Turks for some time. It was in -- you know, the secretary met with his counterpart from Turkey when we were in Brussels a month or so ago. This was a subject then. I know it's been the subject of follow-on conversations with other members of the administration, certainly our ambassador to NATO. From what I've seen, frankly, in the press, it looks as though we've been making progress towards that end. I've seen that Prime Minister Erdogan has, I think, expressed willingness to host this. I don't know if they've come to a -- some ultimate resolution. But I would -- I imagine that, you know, obviously the goal here is that, come the NATO summit in Lisbon, Friday, Saturday -- I don't know which day this is being taken up -- that the alliance will embrace missile defense for NATO and that Turkey will obviously be a part of our unanimous support of that new initiative. 13:19:34 Q You don't have -- you're -- so you're optimistic that Turkey will -- and you're -- MR. MORRELL: Everything I've seen, everything I've heard suggests there is cause for optimism. I just don't have a sense of whether there has been any conclusive agreement reached on this. There may have been, in which case I'd really -- who'd be most up to date on sort of where we stand in our conversations with the Turks would probably be the -- my friends at the State Department. Top of Form Q I just have one unrelated separate question. On private security companies in Afghanistan, what -- is there some movement there? Are you having -- is there a dialogue with the Afghan government that shows that you -- MR. MORRELL: I think we've come to a -- that one, I think, we have come to a resolution on. I think, you know, there -- we've been working closely with the Afghan government, with President Karzai and his team, for several weeks now, and I think we have, you know, through this collaborative process arrived at what -- at a resolution I think we all think is very responsible and reasonable. And so I'd either point you to ISAF or to the Afghan government in terms of articulating the specifics of it. But I would say that I think it is also one that probably the NGOs, who are so vital to the development side of our efforts in Afghanistan, that they can be comfortable with; that it provides for security of major development projects, so that they don't have to fear any more than they already do for their well- being or that of the project as we move forward. But I think we have, you know, arrived at a good conclusion there. Yes, Tony. Q You mentioned that at the department Mr. Gates has got a number of important decisions in the weeks and months ahead. The Defense Acquisition Board is meeting Monday, or scheduled to, on the Joint Strike Fighter. Can you give some insight into what they will be reviewing and will that include this technical baseline review from Admiral Venlet? MR. MORRELL: The DAB Is indeed -- I love these terms -- the DAB is meeting Monday, as you said. But I would just underscore to you, Tony, that this was a meeting that was scheduled back in June, so there's nothing sort of -- there's no development that has necessitated this meeting. Top of Form It was put on the books in June. It's scheduled to take place on Monday. It will focus, yes, on the JSF, and specifically on the work that Admiral Venlet has been doing with his Technical Baseline Review, which is near completion -- not final, but considerable work has been done there. They will review that. They will discuss some JSF management issues for the coming year. But I would emphasize, Tony, that you should not expect any decisions to come out of this meeting on Monday. Any decisions with regard to this program, as important as it is, would likely be made -- or at least the major decisions, of course, will be made by the secretary himself, and likely as a part of the 2012 budget review. But as you know, Admiral Venlet has -- you know, was brought in as a three-star to -- and with a lot of, lot of experience, to really dive deep into this program, deeper than we've ever gone before, and find out as much as we can about any remaining challenges that we face with regards to it. 13:23:19 He has done this -- I mean, this is soup-to-nuts. This is 120 people; not taking anybody's word for anything but saying to them, "Show me the money, show me the proof, show me the data, don't give me your version of the world, I want to see your version of the world." And I think, as a result, we feel as though we have a much better understanding, including some new issues, of where we stand with this program and what might need to be done as a result of that. Q Is it fair to say that it, roughly, is going to recommend additional cost, or additional dollars and additional schedule slip in the development program? MR. MORRELL: I'm not -- I'm not going to say what it's fair to say at this point. This -- as I said, it's not done yet, and it will be -- any recommendations that come out of it will be dealt with as a part of the budget review, which is something, you know, the particulars of which, that we don't discuss publicly. So you just hold your horses in that front. Q (Off mike) -- I mean, a layperson watching this program would say to him or herself -- MR. MORRELL: This program or the JSF program? Q The F-35 program. MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q There was a JET estimate last November that resulted in a lot of change to the program. There was a Nunn-McCurdy breach, in Washington parlance, in June. Now is -- there's another review of this program -- three in, you know, one-year. Is this a troubled program that needs all these reviews? I mean, what's going on here, a prudent person would ask. MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, you sort of answered the question yourself with how you stipulated things. I mean, clearly, if it's a Nunn-McCurdy breach, it's having trouble, right? Q That was June, though -- (off mike) -- November. MR. MORRELL: Okay, but by definition, if we've hit Nunn-McCurdy, there have been issues with this program, there have been troubles with this program. We've acknowledged that for -- frankly, for the last couple of years. And the secretary in February undertook a major restructuring of this program. 13:25:37 13:27:28 And I can go -- we can talk at length about the measures he took, about the money he withheld, about the people he let go, about the people he hired and promoted, and then -- but one of the key components of this was tasking the new program manager to take a deeper dive than we have ever taken in this before so as to avoid future surprises about this program. That's what Admiral Venlet has been doing; that's what he has nearly completed. And as I said last time I saw you and just a few moments ago, he has discovered additional issues that are of concern. We are -- it is -- those issues may be discussed in the DAB, but there will be no actions taken at the DAB as a result of those. That -- those kinds of actions would be reserved for the 2012 budget process. Q But you can't give a sense of some of these issues, whether they're cost or technical related? MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, Tony, it's -- I mean, just to give you one example, we had a belief at one point that we had x number of lines of code left to be written. Q Software. MR. MORRELL: Yes. And what we found is we have more software code to be written than we had originally thought. So that's just an example of having, you know, gone under the hood yourself and taken a look at the engine firsthand, that we have discovered additional things that need to be done to get ultimately to where we want to be. Q You're 10 years into this program now, and you're telling me this year is when you're taking the deepest dive ever. You wonder why this wasn't done before the deepest dive. MR. MORRELL: Well, Tony, obviously there have been reviews of this program previously. I think at the time -- and frankly, I would -- I would -- I think it's fair to say the secretary is frustrated by the fact that they have not been as -- they have not fully eliminated the issues of this program. And he made it clear when he undertook the restructuring in February, when he hired Admiral Venlet, that he did not want future surprises. So let's get to a baseline now. Let's figure out where bottom is. And then come to me, so we can make decisions fully informed by all the problems that we face. But let me just also make clear -- and I know this bores some in our -- some in our audience, but I know it's of great interest to you, Tony -- let me also -- Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: You're absolutely right, and that's why I want to underscore this point. Don't mistake any of this as any sort of wavering on this program. This program is -- this will be the backbone of our tac air for decades to come. So it is of vital importance to this department. The secretary has believed that for some time. He continues to believe that. And, you know, we fully expected that there would be development issues in a program as sophisticated as this one. Frankly, every time we've met them, we've overcome them. But we want to have a full -- as full an appreciation as possible up front for what more still needs to be done so that we can plan accordingly, and that's what we're in the midst of right now. Yes, Justin. 13:29:41 Q Geoff, what does the date -- the year 2014 mean for the war in Afghanistan? Is this -- is this an aspirational goal for the withdrawal of most combat forces, or is this a deadline for withdrawal? MR. MORRELL: I think you have it right, Justin. You've heard our -- you've heard the lines clearly before. I mean, yes. I mean, it's the end of 2014, which is a goal that frankly was first set out by President Karzai during his inauguration, what, more than a year ago -- or a year ago, and was further reiterated when he went to London for a donors' conference, then again at the Kabul conference. And I think you will see it formally embraced by NATO this weekend. So, 2014 has been out there for quite some time as an aspirational goal for us to meet in terms of ultimately putting the Afghan security forces in the lead having primary responsibility for the security of their country. I would emphasize two things here. Number one, it is the end of 2014, so effectively it's by 2015; and that although the hope is -- the goal is to have Afghan security forces in the lead over the preponderance of the country by then, it does not necessarily mean, A, that everywhere in the country they will necessarily be in the lead -- although clearly that would be the goal, that would be the hope, that's what we would shoot for -- and number -- and B, that it does not mean that all U.S. or coalition forces would necessarily be gone by that date. There may very well be the need for forces to remain in-country, albeit, hopefully, at smaller numbers, to assist the Afghans as they assume lead responsibility for the security of their country. I've seen some of these stories that have sort of suggested that there is an inherent contradiction between July 2011 and the -- and the end of 2014. And I think we have always seen these as very much linked and consistent that you would, as the president articulated nearly a year ago, begin the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces come July 2011, based upon conditions on the ground, and then, hopefully, move the Afghans into increasing responsibility for their security. We're already seeing it, frankly. You know, we talked last week, or two weeks ago, about how at the time I think there were six out of 10 security forces in the -- in the Hamkari operations in Kandahar were Afghans. I think that number has since risen to seven out of 10. So Afghan forces, which have grown by roughly a hundred thousand over the past year, are increasingly taking responsibility for the safety and security of their people. And we envision that by the end of 2014 they will be able to do that over the preponderance of their country. Q And so if that worked according to plan and they had security of most of the country, how many U.S. and NATO forces would you see in country at the end of 2014 and the start of 2015, roughly, would you say? MR. MORRELL: I think it's entirely unknowable at this point. I don't think anybody could tell you with any -- with any credence what the force posture will be four years from now. It's just impossible to know. It just depends. Like, we don't know, for example -- here we are nine months out -- less than that; eight months, seven months out from the July 2011 date, and the conditions on the ground are not known to us now about -- you know, for July 2011. So we can't even tell you, for example, how many forces we estimate will be coming out or reinvested come July 2011, let alone, you know, four years from now. Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q Okay. After what we have seen this week, President Karzai's comments, how do you describe the relation with -- MR. MORRELL: Let me just -- hold on one second. I just want to underscore, as I talked about the growth of the ANSF, it was brought to my attention today also, because I think it's overlooked, and although it doesn't deal with us specifically, I think it's an interesting statistic that you may want to pursue: So if the ANSF has grown by a hundred thousand over the past year, similarly, Afghan civil servants. We have trained 11,000 Afghan civil servants since February. 13:34:10 So, much focus has been placed on the growth of the ANSF. And it's important. It is clearly the long pole in our tent in terms of -- you know, the surge was meant for two things. It was meant to reverse the momentum of the Taliban and it was meant to buy time to develop the size and the capability of the ANSF. We've had great success on that front, but we're also simultaneously clearly trying to develop the civilian capacity of the Afghan government. And I think that's a telling figure, that 11,000 Afghans have been trained this year as well. Sorry. (Joe ?). Q Yeah. After what you have seen this week, President Karzai's comments, how do you describe the relation with Kabul right now? Do you thing the Pentagon and President Karzai are on the same page regarding the special operations of the military, the -- (inaudible)? MR. MORRELL: I do. And I think, you know, it was useful for all of us to have the secretary of Defense get this question himself on Tuesday morning at a Wall Street Journal event he attended. I would direct you to those comments, which essentially said that, you know, President Karzai is our partner; we certainly understand what he was trying to express in that Washington Post article. And I think, you know, what Secretary Gates said is that he thinks that what you saw there was the leader of a country whose people have been at war for the last 30 years is frustrated by that reality. And that's perfectly reasonable and understandable. 13:36:01 And he longs for the days, and hopefully the days to come -- the days in the past and the days to come when our role in Afghanistan will be one primarily in the development phase, when we are back to building roads and aqueducts and reservoirs and canals and things of that nature, as we did in the '50s and so on. But we can't get there from here quickly. It's going to take some time till we are solely in that role in Afghanistan. There is still much more work to be done on the security front. And I think Secretary Gates is confident -- and I think you heard it from Secretary Clinton, as well -- that we can get there with President Karzai as our -- as our partner. He is the elected leader of that country. He will be the leader of that country for the next four years. And I think we both share an understanding of where we are and where we need to get to. I would also note, as you saw, I think, in one -- in an AP story today, that President Karzai met with General Petraeus yesterday. They had a lengthy meeting. It wasn't entirely one-on-one; I think people joined it later. But as I understand it, they had a very good discussion about the issues that President Karzai raised concerns about in The Washington Post. 13:37:14 And I think General Petraeus went through each of those issues -- whether it be night operations, private-security contractors, force levels, things of that nature -- and explained our mutual understanding of these things. And I think at the end of it there was a solid understanding between those two gentlemen about the campaign and, as it's been described to me, there was absolutely no daylight between them on this front. And I think you'll likely see that from President Karzai himself when he speaks in Lisbon at the NATO summit later this week. But, I mean, I'm sure you've talked, Joe, to our -- to my colleagues in Kabul, who have gone to great lengths to explain to you all, as we have done so with the Afghan leadership, precisely how night operations work. 13:38:21 You know, we have made extraordinary adjustments in how we conduct these things, mindful of the fact that although they are militarily necessarily -- necessary -- and I think clearly all -- President Karzai and everybody else in his administration understands that -- they are politically sensitive. And we're -- we understand that. This does put the Afghan leadership in a -- in a difficult position with its people. They are a sovereign country, but they have real security needs that have to be attended to. And night operations are, you know, one of the most effective ways of doing so. But nothing we undertake at night is done without full consultation with the Afghan government, with the Afghan military. They have officers in our -- in our operations center. They are involved in the planning from the very beginning. It goes up through their chain of command for approval. And on each and every one of our operations at night -- 80 percent of which, I would remind you, result in no shots being fired as we are apprehending suspects -- in each of these operations, there is a minimum of seven specially trained Afghan special operations forces along, who are in the lead when it comes to announcing -- you know, taking to the bull horn and asking families to leave their homes peacefully so that we can conduct searches for suspected individuals, and who are in the lead in terms of dealing with sort of sensitive situations, particularly dealing with Afghan women and children. So they are vital partners in this from the beginning of the planning process to the execution of these missions. STAFF (?): Geoff. MR. MORRELL: Yeah, let's finish up. Gordon. Q (Off mike) -- Geoff. There's a lot of focus on the 900 trainers -- right? -- going into Lisbon. And I'm just curious; I think Secretary-General Rasmussen said that, you know, we could get the trainers sometime, even by the end of next year. How much -- how important are these trainers? And I know there's a game of poker here at some -- on some level, but how willing would the U.S. be to kick in some of those trainers, if need be, quicker? MR. MORRELL: Well, the trainers are vitally important. I mean, we are -- as much success as we've had over the past year in growing and developing the Afghan national security forces, there is a lot more work to be done. And the way this system is developed, we are going to need more -- many more trainers, hundreds more trainers, very soon. So I would really, in this respect, point you to Portugal and Lisbon this weekend, and let's hopefully see some developments there, but they are vitally necessary. There's no way around it. And as for whether or not -- you know, we've stepped into the breach already with what was supposed to be a temporary assignment of -- I don't know. I think it ended up being 600 or so Army personnel who went over to perform a training function. 13:41:44 And you know -- listen, for example, this week -- not directly related to training, but the secretary approved the deployment of a battalion, an Army infantry battalion, which will go over to augment the Special Forces village stability operations, which ultimately is what's developing the Afghan local police, which everybody has great faith will ultimately be a game-changer in Afghanistan. So we clearly have, when necessary, ponied up. But we also -- and the -- our allies have done -- have been very supportive as well over the past year especially, the past couple years especially. But we need more help from them with regards to trainers. If -- we are -- continue on the glide path that we've been enjoying with regards to the ANSF growth. Q (Inaudible) -- the battalion like that, is that falling in that 10 percent? MR. MORRELL: It does, yeah. This would -- this would -- I believe is coming out of the flex that the secretary has. This is -- this was -- I mean, this is -- this is why, you know, all these silly stories you see from time to time about, you know, there being a cap. I mean, our commanders still very much have the ability to raise their hand and say, "I need x." 13:42:52 And I think every time General Petraeus has ever said "I need x," the secretary has given him x. So this is another case where he has said, this is -- we believe that the Afghan local police are very important, that we think they're having a big difference where they have been deployed so far. I think right now we have 20 districts certified. We've got -- and we've got, I think -- the desire now is to grow that to perhaps -- we got 20 -- we got 10,000 Afghan local police approved. I think the desire ultimately among -- with the Afghans and our command in Afghanistan is to double that, so you potentially have 20,000 Afghan local police. That's going to require more of our forces to help the special forces that are so key to developing these local police forces, which are roughly -- each district, I think, would have about 300 of these guys. Q (Off mike.) MR. MORRELL: Hold on, I'll come back to you. Q Can I just clarify -- MR. MORRELL: Yeah. Q -- the math on that? So you've used about 2,000 of the flex, if I remember correctly, and this would be how many more? MR. MORRELL: We'd have to get you a precise number, but, you know, it could be a thousand more. We'll have to get -- we'll get you the precise number. But remember, these are fluctuating numbers. I wouldn't get so caught up on: you've used 2,000, you've used two- thirds, you've used that. Our numbers are constantly fluctuating, based upon guys rotating in, guys rotating out, guys needed for a certain period of time and then not needed. But this was an identified need that had -- that will be met so that we can continue this -- the development of this Afghan local police program. Q Geoff, can I just clarify another thing on Gordo's (sp) question? So you have 10,000 police, local police? MR. MORRELL: Now, they have -- we don't have 10,000 now, but what we have -- the program has been approved to ultimately develop 10,000 Afghan local police. I think it is the desire of both the Afghans and General Petraeus to ultimately double that number. We're now looking at possibly a 20,000-person Afghan local police force. Q Is it concentrated in an area like RC East? MR. MORRELL: No. Q Or is it spread around? 13:45:18 MR. MORRELL: No, it's -- they have looked for -- it's all done very, very -- in a very calculated and strategic way, based upon, you know, if -- are there areas where we have a high concentration of troops but there are -- but we can't get them to -- and the -- for example, we've got a lot of focus, obviously, right now in the Kandahar area. There are, as we describe, "rat-lines," supply lines into Taliban in and around kalibar -- Kandahar -- that travel through areas that we don't have the resources to focus on now, but where we see a willingness among the local population to stand up and guard against them being used as a supply route to resupply the Taliban. And so what we are doing is putting these Afghan local police in areas that we think could have an impact not just on those communities, but also ultimately on the supply and movement of the Taliban. Okay. This -- as we go on, more hands are going up, which is problematic. It's supposed to work the other way. So let's -- we'll -- I'll go for four more minutes. We'll go to 50. And we'll see -- we'll go into the speed round. You've already asked. Let's go to Jayhawk (ph) here. What do you got? Q There's some report of -- about a possible nuclear test by North Korea. Can you comment on that? MR. MORRELL: You know, I've seen these press reports you speak of. You know -- you know, I've actually mostly seen press reports, frankly, due to this sort of notion of sort of building a light-water reactor and other things where they're undertaking construction here or there. 13:47:01 And obviously all I could really say to you there is, we watch the North very closely. We monitor developments there closely. We are trying, as we always do, to decipher real intent in this otherwise very secretive country. You know, if it's true that they are pursuing any one of these things, it obviously is of concern to us, and we would call on the North, you know, not to take any additional provocative or destabilizing actions and rather to engage constructively with its neighbors, particularly the South, and ultimately in diplomacy so that we can get to what our -- what we hope our -- you know, the goal -- all of our goal is, which is a denuclearized peninsula that is lasting and verifiable and so forth. So, anyway. Yes, go ahead. Q (Off mike) -- China commission put out a report which showed some stark U.S. vulnerabilities in the Pacific. I think it was four out of five bases not -- excluding Hawaii only, but that they were vulnerable to Chinese attack. Are you -- are you aware of this? MR. MORRELL: I have not -- I have not read the entirety of the report, so let me -- let me -- you want to chat after? We can speak about specifics, or we certainly have experts on -- who deal with these matters day in and day out, who can also edify you about any specifics. Q (Off mike) -- you know, given tensions in the Pacific region, just this -- (off mike). MR. MORRELL: Say it again? Q It's a pretty shocking report, given the tensions in the region. It seems that there's -- it seems to point out quite a vulnerability on the U.S. side. MR. MORRELL: I don't know what the vulnerability is you speak to, so I can't refute it. I mean, I find it hard to believe that we feel as though we right now are vulnerable. If we felt like we were vulnerable and there was a real threat that was potentially -- that we were exposed to, I am sure we would be taking requisite action. So I'm -- let me look at the report. I haven't seen it or talked to our experts who have seen the report. But I would -- my sense is, I want to take issue with your question, but I am not armed with the ability to do so at this moment. So, anyway -- yes, young lady. Q Any update on Secretary Gates' trip to China and -- MR. MORRELL: We're working -- we're working it; hopefully, for early next year. We're still working it. I don't have anything new to announce there. Q With China, military-to-military exchanges, any update on that? MR. MORRELL: I don't know that we've had any developments. I mean, obviously, we've -- I don't know if I have any developments there. Obviously, that is a -- that is a goal. That's something we're working for -- towards. You know, we want increased interaction, engagement, conversation across the board. I don't know that I have any to announce since the last time we spoke, though. Okay? Yeah, let's go. We have one minute here. Louis, you're not getting one. Go ahead. Q Yeah, just on Iraq for a minute. The secretary said a week or so ago that he was open to the idea of extending troop presence in Iraq. And since then, they've formed a government over there. Has the department had any kind of communications with the Iraqi government, or do you have any further insight as to -- MR. MORRELL: I think the Iraqi government right now is focused on trying to actually fill out their government. While they have come to an agreement about leadership, about the three key leadership posts, they have a lot of work to do over the next 30 days to form the rest of the -- you know, the key -- the rest of the key ministries. So I do not believe we have any -- have had any communication along those -- on those grounds. And I wouldn't expect it in the near term, as they have considerable work to do in terms of finishing the formation of their government. 13:50:37 I think what the secretary said the -- probably the last time he -- I can't remember the last time he said this, but he's said it, frankly, for months and months, is that we will -- of course we are open to having such a conversation with the Iraqi government at the appropriate time. But I think they have other priorities at this very moment. Let's do these two, and then we're done. Q Geoff, can you tell us why it is that the secretary's going to South America and not to the NATO summit? Doesn't the summit deal with matters that take up much more of his time? MR. MORRELL: I think the summit will be well represented -- you know, the United States will be well and adequately represented at the -- at the summit. I mean, you have the -- this is a head-of-state gathering. The president of the United States will be there. The secretary of Defense will be there -- pardon, the secretary of State will be there. So I think we are in more than good hands, at -- particularly for defense-related issues, to be represented by those two. We will have -- Assistant Secretary of Defense Sandy Vershbow will be there. He has a small team with him. But no, I think there is -- there are more than enough high-level U.S. representatives in Lisbon to do the job. And -- but I think this speaks to the fact, frankly, that there -- we can do multiple things at once, you know -- even though you're right, the preponderance of our efforts militarily have been in the Middle East and have been partnered mostly with Europeans in that effort. As you saw from our trip to Australia and Malaysia last week and by our trip tomorrow to South America, we remain actively engaged elsewhere in the world as well. We have -- you know, we clearly have increased our engagement, at least with regards to high-level visits and so forth and conversations in Asia over the last couple of years. And we continue outreach in South America as well and elsewhere -- Africa, elsewhere. But we can do multiple things at once. We can deploy high-level officials simultaneously multiple places around the world and still get the job done. Yes, go ahead. Q Two quick questions -- (inaudible). One, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, so much going on, and Taliban leaders are saying now officially that as long as one U.S. troop remains there, that terrorism or terror activities will continue. My question is, what role do you think the neighboring countries like India, Pakistan or even Russia will play after 2011 or '14, when all -- MR. MORRELL: Who's -- who's saying this, so long as one remains there? Q Taliban leaders there. MR. MORRELL: Is this the Mullah Omar Eid statement? Q Yeah, one of them, yes, you're right. MR. MORRELL: If you -- if you -- if you do want to decipher the Mullah Omar Eid statement, it is interesting reading from the respect that it clearly shows that they are having enormous issues with -- vis-a-vis our operations in Afghanistan. There is a clarion call to sympathetic supporters around the world for additional funding, clearly suggesting they're having trouble financing their operations. There is a call also for fighters not to come back to the safe havens, but to remain in-country duking it out as best they can, even though they're not adequately supplied. So I think -- and there's also complaints, frankly, about you all, about the media. They feel as though you've been co-opted by us, which I think you guys would obviously take exception to. But -- so to me, there's a suggestion that they have issues; that the operational tempo, that the additional forces, that the sustained, consistent, aggressive engagements that we have undertaken militarily are -- they are having an impact and they are feeling the effects of it right now. Q On - 13:54:09 MR. MORRELL: With regard to the region, yes, India, Pakistan, Iran, all of Afghanistan's neighbors are ultimately very important to the stabilization of that region. They all need to be playing a positive, productive, constructive influence on Afghanistan. Q And finally -- MR. MORRELL: Justin. Q Finally, if I may -- MR. MORRELL: Yeah, you've -- I think you've had two or three. Justin. Q How important are the plans and agreements that Russia plans to sign in Lisbon about opening up trade routes and possibly supplying more helicopters -- MR. MORRELL: All -- Russia has played a very constructive role with regards to our operations in Afghanistan. We have, as you know, developed a whole alternate supply line network to keep our forces supplied, and they were instrumental in us being able to bring in routes from the north so that we were not solely reliant on what are also very important routes through Pakistan. So they played a very constructive role there. They played a constructive role in terms of counternarcotics. They played a constructive role in terms of supplying Soviet -- or Russian-built helicopters to the Afghan air force, who are used to and most comfortable dealing with those aircraft. So I would, yes, point you to Lisbon next -- later this week. I think we will -- you know, we're going to have our first meeting of the NATO-Russia Council since the Georgia invasion, and hopefully we'll get more -- more movement out of that. Q My question was, are any of these plans threatened by a potential failure of the START agreement? MR. MORRELL: Well, I mean, yes, in the sense that we have been working over the past couple of years to restart or reset our relationship with Russia. We have made real progress in a number of areas, particularly, as I just mentioned, cooperation in Afghanistan, cooperation also in sanctions against Iran, the latter of which could not have been done without Russian support. And in addition to all the reasons why it's important for verification reasons and important for our credibility on nonproliferation issues worldwide, it's also fundamentally important in terms of our credibility as a partner with the -- with the -- with the Russians on this issue that we be able to get this ratified this year. And that's why we are pushing so hard to get this done in the remaining weeks that we have with this Congress. All right, Louie, come see me later. Q See ya. END. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE: THE ROCK OBAMA
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE RECORDED ON 11/28/2009. HOST GERARD BUTLER. INCLUDES DWAYNE "THE ROCK" JOHNSON IN A COLD OPENING "THE ROCK OBAMA" SKIT WHICH SHOWS PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA TURNING INTO THE ROCK ( IN THE SYTLE OF THE THE HULK) WHEN HE BECOMES ANGRY. ORIGINIAL AIR DATE WAS 10/19/2009. 23:30:10 >>> SO WHAT'S NEXT ON THE SCHEDULE, CATE? 23:30:12 >> AS PER YOUR QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT, SENATOR SNOWE, 23:30:13 McCONNELL AND BAUCUS ARE HERE TO DISCUSS HEALTH CARE. 23:30:14 >> THAT'S GREAT. YOU KNOW, KATIE, THIS IS THE 23:30:15 CLOSEST WE HAVE EVER COME TO REFORM IN THIS COUNTRY. 23:30:17 I JUST NEED EVERYONE TO BEHAVE. >> ARE YOU GOING TO GET ANGRY 23:30:18 WITH THEM? >> NOW, KATIE, NO. 23:30:19 YOU KNOW I DON'T GET ANGRY. I FIND IT WORKS BETTER TO KILL 23:30:20 THEM WITH KINDNESS. SEND THEM IN. 23:30:21 >> MR. PRESIDENT. >> HELLO. 23:30:23 >> SENATOR. >> HELLO. 23:30:24 >> HAVE A SEAT. >> NOW, LOOK, I ASKED YOU ALL 23:30:30 HERE BECAUSE I WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE A VOICE IN THE HEALTH CARE 23:30:33 REFORM DEBATE. NOW, SENATOR BAUCUS, YOU'RE A 23:30:38 MODERATE DEMOCRAT, BUT THANKS TO YOUR EFFORTS IN THE SENATE 23:30:41 FINANCE COMMITTEE, YOU HAVE A VOICE. 23:30:45 SENATOR SNOWE, YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN WHO CROSSED PARTY 23:30:47 LINES TO VOTE FOR THE BAUCUS BILL. 23:30:51 AND YOU HAVE A VOICE. SENATOR McCONNELL, AS THE SENATE 23:30:56 MINORITY LEADER, I WANT YOU TO HAVE A VOICE IN THIS TOO. 23:31:00 NOW, WHAT CAN I DO TO BRING THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 23:31:03 INTO THE CONVERSATION? >> WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, MAYBE I 23:31:06 CAN EXPLAIN THE REPUBLICAN POSITION. 23:31:09 IT IS NOT THAT WE WANT HEALTH CARE TO FAIL, WE DON'T. 23:31:12 WE JUST WANT YOU TO FAIL. STOPPING HEALTH CARE REFORM 23:31:17 SEEMS LIKE THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT. 23:31:23 BECAUSE IF YOU FIXED HEALTH CARE, THAT WOULD BE A REAL 23:31:25 VICTORY FOR YOU. AND THAT'S BAD FOR US. 23:31:32 WITH THAT SAID, I COULD SEE US SUPPORTING HEALTH CARE, BUT ONLY 23:31:35 IF YOU SWITCH YOUR POSITION TO AGAINST IT. 23:31:45 >> AHHHH! 23:32:08 >> OH, MY GOD. WHAT HAPPENED? 23:32:11 >> YOU MADE BARACK OBAMA ANGRY. YOU MAKE HIM ANGRY, HE TURNS. 23:32:15 HE TURNS INTO "THE ROCK" OBAMA! >> THE ROCK OBAMA? 23:32:28 >> NOW, DON'T BE ALARMED. THE ROCK OBAMA, MUCH LIKE BARACK 23:32:33 OBAMA, ONLY STRONGER AND MORE ANGRY. 23:32:39 NOW, WE GET DOWN TO BUSINESS. KATIE, HOLD CALLS. 23:32:54 NOW, WHERE WERE WE? YOU, LITTLE MAN IN SUIT. 23:32:59 >> ME? >> YES. 23:33:02 WHY FINANCE COMMITTEE NO HAVE PUBLIC OPTION? 23:33:05 >> THE BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND I HAVE A 23:33:08 DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCY TO ADDRESS. 23:33:10 >> YOU BLUE DOG? ME LIKE DOGS. 23:33:14 >> THANK YOU. >> BARK FOR ME. 23:33:19 >> SORRY? >> BARK FOR ME, LIKE DOG. 23:33:26 [ BARKING ] >> ME LIKE DOG. 23:33:35 ME NO LIKE YOU. >> HEY, NO! 23:33:47 >> YOU. >> WHO, ME? 23:33:50 >> WHY YOU NO WANT FIX HEALTH CARE? 23:33:54 >> WELL, I'M JUST WORRIED IF THERE WAS A PUBLIC OPTION, 23:33:57 PEOPLE WHO LIKE THEIR INSURANCE NOW WOULD LOSE IT. 23:34:02 >> YOU LIKE YOUR INSURANCE? >> I DO. 23:34:07 I DO. >> BETTER CALL YOUR INSURANCE. 23:34:19 TELL THEM YOU NEED NEW ARMS. >> OKAY. 23:34:21 OKAY. >> GO NOW. 23:34:27 GET ARM. >> OUT THE WINDOW? 23:34:29 >> YES. LIKE ARM. 23:34:30 >> OKAY. >> HELLO, LADY. 23:34:39 >> HELLO. >> COME DOWN. 23:34:47 CLOSER. HMM. 23:34:54 YOU REPUBLICAN WHO VOTE FOR BAUCUS BILL. 23:34:56 >> YES. >> BUT YOU PROBABLY NO VOTE FOR 23:34:59 HEALTH CARE ON SENATE FLOOR. >> I MIGHT. 23:35:03 >> TELL TRUTH. >> NO. 23:35:04 PROBABLY NOT. >> PUT HEAD IN HAND. 23:35:09 I SMASH IT NOW. >> REALLY? 23:35:20 REALLY? >> WHO GOT YOU MAD? 23:35:22 >> SENATORS. >> ALWAYS THE SENATORS. 23:35:26 YOU MIGHT WANT TO GET OUT OF HERE, SNOWE. 23:35:28 THERE YOU GO. GET OUT OF THE DOOR. 23:35:29 THERE YOU GO. >> SENATORS MAKE ROCK OBAMA SO 23:35:34 ANGRY. >> HEY. 23:35:35 LOOK AT ME. ROCK OBAMA, SO ALONE. 23:35:40 >> NO. COME ON. 23:35:41 LOOK AT ME. YOU GOT ME. 23:35:43 WHO'S YOUR PAL? >> JOE BIDEN IS PAL. 23:35:47 >> THAT'S RIGHT, BIG GUY. THAT'S RIGHT. 23:35:48 TAKE A SEAT. LOOK, GO AHEAD, SIT DOWN. 23:35:51 NOW, LOOK, I KNOW THINGS ARE TOUGH RIGHT NOW. 23:35:54 EVERYONE'S ASKING THE WORLD OF YOU, RIGHT? 23:35:56 WANTING YOU TO CLEAN UP A MESS THAT WASN'T YOURS IN THE FIRST 23:35:59 PLACE. >> IT'S TRUE. 23:36:00 NOT MY MESS. >> THAT'S RIGHT. 23:36:01 YOU GOT GENERALS RUNNING THEIR MOUTHS ABOUT POLICY, GOLDMAN 23:36:05 GIVING OUT BILLIONS IN BONUSES, THEN NOBEL PEOPLE GAVE YOU AN 23:36:10 AWARD YOU HAD NO RIGHT IN WINNING. 23:36:14 JUST A LITTLE EARLY. COME ON. 23:36:17 I KNOW. BUT THERE IS SOME GOOD NEWS TOO. 23:36:19 >> WHAT GOOD NEWS? >> I'LL TELL YOU WHAT GOOD NEWS. 23:36:23 THAT KID WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS IN A SPACESHIP, SAFE AND SOUND. 23:36:30 BACK WITH HIS LOVING PARENTS LIVING IN A BOX IN HIS ATTIC. 23:36:32 YEP. IF THAT'S NOT A GREAT STORY THIS 23:36:38 COUNTRY CAN RALLY AROUND, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. 23:36:40 >> IT IS A GOOD STORY. >> REAL GOOD STORY. 23:36:42 REAL GOOD STORY. NOW, I HOPE YOU DON'T GET MAD 23:36:46 ABOUT THIS BUT I MADE A BIDEN BLOOPER. 23:36:49 >> WHAT YOU DO? >> I GAVE MY DRY CLEANING TO THE 23:36:51 CHINESE AMBASSADOR. ALL RIGHT, I KNOW. 23:36:54 I KNOW THE DRILL. WHAT DO WE DO HERE? 23:36:57 WE GO WALL OR WINDOW? >> WALL. 23:36:58 >> WALL IT IS. >> BEING PRESIDENT IS SO HARD. 23:37:11 AND LIVE FROM NEW YORK, IT'S "SATURDAY NIGHT!" 23:38:38 MUSICAL GUEST -- SHAKIRA 23:38:42 AND YOUR HOST -- GERARD BUTLER! 23:38:52 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GERARD BUTLER! 23:39:13 [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] >>> THANK YOU. 23:39:19 THANK YOU! THANK YOU! 23:39:28 IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE HOSTING "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE." 23:39:32 THIS IS -- IT IS ACTUALLY MY FIRST TIME HOSTING WHICH MEANS 23:39:35 I'VE HOSTED MORE THAN ANY OTHER SCOTSMAN IN "SNL" HISTORY. 23:39:38 YEAH! YOU KNOW, AS AN ACTOR, I'M 23:39:49 PRIMARILY KNOWN FOR TWO KINDS OF FILM ROLES. 23:39:51 THERE IS THE KIND WHERE I WEAR A SHIRT, AND THE KIND WHERE I 23:39:54 DON'T. SO IN THE KIND WHERE I DON'T 23:39:58 PEOPLE ARE USUALLY TRYING TO KILL ME LIKE IN THAT "300." 23:40:06 BUT IN THE KIND WHERE I DO WEAR A SHIRT, I'M USUALLY DOING 23:40:09 SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE MORE SENSITIVE, LIKE IN THE FILM 23:40:12 "THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA" WHERE I PLAYED THE PHANTOM. 23:40:17 SO TONIGHT -- TONIGHT I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THAT I'M NOT JUST AN 23:40:21 ACTION GUY, THAT I ALSO HAVE A SENSITIVE SIDE WITH A SONG FROM 23:40:27 MY FAVORITE SHIRT-WEARING MUSICAL. 23:40:35 NIGHTTIME SHARPENS HEIGHTENS EACH SENSATION 23:40:41 DARKNESS STIRS AND WAKES IMAGINATION 23:40:49 SILENTLY THE SENSES ABANDON THEIR DEFENSES 23:40:59 >> ACTUALLY A LOT BETTER THAN I THOUGHT. 23:41:05 SLOWLY, GENTLY NIGHT UNFURLS ITS SPLENDOR 23:41:11 >> AHH! [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] 23:41:26 GRASP IT, SENSE IT TREMULOUS AND TENDER 23:41:35 >> AHH! TURN YOUR FACE AWAY 23:41:40 FROM THE GARISH LIGHT OF DAY 23:41:44 TURN YOUR THOUGHTS AWAY FROM COLD, UNFEELING LIGHT 23:41:51 AND LISTEN TO THE MUSIC OF THE NIGHT 23:41:57 CLOSE YOUR EYES AND SURRENDER 23:42:01 TO YOUR DARKEST DREAMS PURGE THE THOUGHTS 23:42:08 OF THE LIFE YOU KNEW BEFORE 23:42:12 CLOSE YOUR EYES LET YOUR SPIRIT START TO SOAR 23:42:24 AND YOU'LL LIVE AS YOU'VE NEVER 23:42:30 LIVED BEFORE SOFTLY, DEFTLY 23:42:38 MUSIC SHALL CARESS YOU >> TAKE YOUR SHIRT OFF. 23:42:41 >> NO. SECRETLY POSSESS YOU 23:42:46 OPEN UP YOUR MIND LET YOUR FANTASIES UNWIND 23:42:51 IN THIS DARKNESS THAT YOU KNOW YOU CANNOT FIGHT 23:42:58 THE DARKNESS OF THE MUSIC OF THE NIGHT 23:43:06 >> WE GOT A GREAT SHOW FOR YOU. S 23:43:12 SHAKIRA IS HERE. SO STICK AROUND. 23:43:13 WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> WELL, HELD LE, IT IS ME 23:43:26 AGAIN, FUQUAY SATINS, OWNER AND PROPRIETOR OF MASON'S SATINS, 23:43:31 MAKERS OF FINE URBAN CHAMPAGNE, INCLUDING GHETTO IMPERIAL, SEXY 23:43:35 8 RESERVE, AND MINNEAPOLIS MYSTERY. 23:43:39 CHAMPAGNE IS FOR MORE THAN JUST DRINKING IT IS ALSO FOR POURING 23:43:42 ON WOMEN AND CELEBRATION OF WEALTH AND SEXUAL EXCESS, WHICH 23:43:45 IS WHY I CREATED THIS. FUQUAY'S SATINS GRAND HOOCHIE 23:43:50 SKANK ROSETTE, A CHAMPAGNE ESPECIALLY DESIGNED TO POUR DOWN 23:43:54 WOMEN'S ASSES. EVERY BRAND COMES WITH A WIDE 23:43:59 MOUTH, AND TWICE THE CARBONATION FOR MORE BUBBLES WITH SUBTLE 23:44:04 TASTES OF APRICOT, GINGER AND ASS. 23:44:09 IT GOES WITH SOME OF YOUR FAVORITE FOODS, INCLUDING FISH 23:44:11 STICKS, FRIED RICE AND A STYROFOAM CARTON. 23:44:15 SOME SAY MY NEW CHAMPAGNE TASTES FUNNY. 23:44:17 LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. WAS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER YOU 23:44:19 POURED IT DOWN SOMEONE'S ASS? SO TRY ALL OF MY MASON'S DU 23:44:26 SATINS BRANDS OF URBAN CHAMPAGNE. 23:44:29 MASON'S DU SATINS. YOU GOT $10? 23:44:33 THEN YOU GOT GRAND SKANK HOOCHIE ROSETTE. 23:44:44 >>> FOR THE FIRST TIME IN "SNL" HISTORY, WE HAVE ONE SPONSOR 23:44:47 TONIGHT, BUD LIGHT GOLDEN WHEAT AND THEY GENEROUSLY AGREED TO 23:44:51 GIVE UP SOME COMMERCIAL TIME TO LET YOU SEE MOMENTS FROM DRESS 23:44:54 REHEARSALS THAT WE HAVE COLLECTED OVER THE YEARS. 23:44:56 THE FIRST ONE IS UP AFTER THIS. >>> DON'T GO FUSSING ABOUT MR. 23:45:36 APPLES. HE'S A CANTANKEROUS OLD CUSS. 23:45:39 BUT HASN'T THIS SCANDAL JUST PROVEN THAT THE NEWS GAME IS 23:45:43 ABOUT RATINGS? IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE GIVE ME 23:45:47 MORE, GIVE ME BIGGER, GIVE ME BETTER. 23:45:50 >> YES, THAT'S TRUE. BUT WE IN THIS BUSINESS KNOW 23:45:52 WHEN WE HAVE CROSSED THE LINE INTO UNDIGNIFIED JOURNALISM. 23:45:59 >> ANYTIME. >> BUT THERE WILL COME A DAY 23:46:01 WHEN PEOPLE WON'T BE INTERESTED IN STRAIGHT DONKEY RIDING NEWS 23:46:05 SHOWS WITH INDIAN ATTACKS. >> YOU KNOW WHAT? 23:46:07 I DON'T EVEN WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT DAY COMING. 23:46:10 I MEAN, WHERE WOULD PEOPLE GET THEIR NEWS? 23:46:20 >> YOU OKAY, SAM? >> BOY, HE'S GOT SPUNK. 23:46:30 >>> FROM NEW YORK, IT'S BUD LIGHT'S GOLDEN WHEAT EXCLUSIVE 23:46:35 "SNL" VIEWING PARTY. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. 23:46:37 STAY TUNED TO SEE HOW YOU CAN WIN A TRIP TO NEW YORK TO SEE 23:46:41 "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" IN STUDIO >>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO ANOTHER 23:48:01 EDITION OF "GAME TIME WITH RANDY AND GREG," YOUR ONE STOP SHOP 23:48:04 FOR SPORTS TALK. I AM FORMER NFL RUNNING BACK, 23:48:07 RANDY DUKES AND WITH ME AS ALWAYS IS MY CO-HOST GREG. 23:48:11 GREG IS NOT AN ALIEN AND TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE THING, 23:48:14 BASEBALL. WE WANT TO KNOW WHO'S GOT 23:48:16 OCTOBER FEVER? SO, LET'S GO TO THE PHONES. 23:48:19 OUR FIRST CALLER IS OUR OLD FRIEND EDDIE FROM YORK, 23:48:21 PENNSYLVANIA. EDDIE, YOU'RE ON "GAME TIME." 23:48:24 >> HEY, HOW ARE YOU DOING? FIRST OFF, RANDY, I GOT TO SAY 23:48:27 YOU THOUGHT I WAS A CHUMP FOR BACKING THE ANGELS. 23:48:39 WELL, WHO'S THE CHUMP NOW, CHUMP? 23:48:41 >> WHO'S THE CHUMP NOW, CHUMP? >> ALL RIGHT. 23:48:44 YOU GOT ME. >> ALSO, WHAT'S IT LIKE WORKING 23:48:48 WITH AN ALIEN? >> GREG IS NOT AN ALIEN. 23:48:51 LET'S JUST MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CALL. 23:48:54 >> HA-HA, BASEBALL! >> SHH, SHH, OKAY. 23:49:01 AGAIN, OUR TOPIC IS OCTOBER FEVER AND NOTHING ELSE. 23:49:04 NEXT UP IS JOSH FROM BROOKLYN. JOSH, YOU'RE ON "GAME TIME." 23:49:07 >> HEY, YEAH, LET ME SAY THIS PEOPLE SAY THE ANGELS ARE GOING 23:49:10 TO BEAT THE YANKEES BECAUSE OF TEAM SPEED. 23:49:16 WHAT PLANET ARE THEY FROM, GREG'S? 23:49:17 >> GREG IS FROM EARTH. >> NO, HE'S NOT. 23:49:20 ALL RIGHT, QUESTION FOR GREG. >> GREG. 23:49:21 >> GREG, DO YOU COME IN PEACE OR SHOULD WE BE READY FOR 23:49:23 SOMETHING? >> I'M SORRY, CALLER, WE GOT TO 23:49:26 MOVE ON. OKAY? 23:49:30 >> HIS TAIL'S OUT! [ GROWLING AND CLICKING ] 23:49:36 >> EASY. EASY. 23:49:47 [ CLICKING ] >> YES, WHICH BASEBALL CLUB DO 23:49:50 YOU THINK WILL WIN THE ANNUAL WORLD'S CHAMPIONSHIP THIS YEAR? 23:49:53 >> WHAT? >> OH, FORGET IT, LOOK, I'M A 23:49:55 SCIENTIST FROM NASA, I WANT ACCESS. 23:49:56 PLEASE, THERE IS SO MUCH WE CAN LEARN. 23:49:58 GREG. DO YOU HAVE WATER ON YOUR 23:50:02 PLANET. ONCE FOR NO, TWICE FOR YES. 23:50:05 [ MAKES FUNNY NOISE TWICE ] IS THAT A YES? 23:50:07 >> THAT'S ENOUGH WITH THE CALLERS. 23:50:09 I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY WE HAVE CALLERS ON THE SHOW ANYWAY. 23:50:11 IT'S TIME TO BRING OUT OUR FIRST GUEST. 23:50:13 BEFORE HE WAS INJURED LAST SEASON, HE LED THE BLUE JAYS 23:50:15 SAVES AND NOW HE'S HERE TO GIVE US HIS PLAYOFF PICKS. 23:50:19 PLEASE WELCOME CAL SASLO. >> HEY, THANKS FOR HAVING ME ON. 23:50:27 I NEVER MET A REAL LIFE ALIEN BEFORE. 23:50:29 [ LAUGHTER ] >> WHAT ARE YOUR PICKS? 23:50:35 >> WAIT, I GOT A QUESTION. WHY DON'T YOU JUST CALL THE SHOW 23:50:37 "GREG THE ALIEN," I MEAN, THAT'S WHY FOLKS WATCH IT. 23:50:39 TO HEAR HIM TALK AND LOOK AT THE TAIL. 23:50:42 [ SCREAMING ] >> LET GO OF THE TAIL! 23:50:44 LET GO OF THE TAIL! >> IT'S DRY. 23:50:56 >> EASY, BOY. EASY. 23:50:59 WHOA, WHOA, WHOA. I'M SORRY, GREG. 23:51:02 I'M SORRY. >> WELL, THAT WAS TOO MANY 23:51:08 THINGS TO ADDRESS. JOIN US NEXT WEEK FOR "GAME 23:51:16 TIME" WITH RANDY AND GREG WHEN WE'LL TALK WITH BASEBALL WITH 23:51:21 MR. -- >>> ON NOVEMBER 7th, HOST AND 23:51:32 MUSICAL GUEST TAYLOR SWIFT. >>> ARE YOU A FATHER? 23:52:11 >> YES, I HAVE THREE BOYS. >> AND ARE THEY INVOLVED IN THE 23:52:14 BROTHERHOOD? >> NO. 23:52:16 MY SON KAREEM JR. CURRENTLY LIVES IN ANOTHER STATE, I 23:52:19 BELIEVE, AND MY OTHER BOY, ANDRE'S MOTHER WON'T TALK TO ME. 23:52:25 SO I'VE LOST TRACK OF HIM. AND MY OTHER SON TREY -- TREY IS 23:52:32 DEAD. >> THAT'S TERRIFIC. 23:52:42 IF YOU'RE JUST JOINING US, IT IS 4:51 IN THE A.M. 23:52:46 YOU'RE WATCHING PERSPECTIVES. I'M LIONEL OSBORNE AND WITH ME 23:52:49 IS COMMUNITY ACTIVIST AT DUKE KAREEM GATES, FOUNDER OF THE 23:52:55 BROTHERHOOD FOR RESPONSIBLE BROTHERS WHO ARE FATHERS. 23:52:57 THEY'RE CELEBRATING THEIR FIRST ANNIVERSARY THIS WEEK AND ALL 23:53:02 ARE WELCOME AND HIS SON IS DEAD. 23:54:48 . OUR ENCHANTED STORY CONTINUES ON 23:54:50 A TARRY NIGHT AS LOVE BEGINS TO BLOSSOM BETWEEN BEAUTY AND THE 23:54:53 BEAST. >> WOULD YOU DO ME THE GREAT 23:55:12 HONOR OF JOINING ME IN A DANCE? >> THE HONOR WOULD BE MINE. 23:55:19 TALE AS OLD AS TIME TRUE AS IT CAN BE 23:55:29 BARELY EVEN FRIENDS THEN SOMEBODY BENDS 23:55:37 BEAUTY AND THE BEAST >> OH, WHENEVER I'M IN YOUR 23:55:44 PRESENCE, I CAN FEEL THE DARK CLOUDS PARTING AND THE SUN 23:55:49 SHINING ON MY FACE. >> THEY SAY TRUE LOVE CAN BREAK 23:55:51 THE CURSE. AND I CAN'T IMAGINE A LOVE MORE 23:55:53 TRUE THAN THIS. >> OH, MY DARLING, I CAN HARDLY 23:56:00 WAIT UNTIL YOUR TRANSFORMATION. [ LAUGHTER ] 23:56:07 >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN MY TRANSFORMATION? 23:56:12 >> WELL, YOU KNOW, THE CURSE WILL BE BROKEN AND THEN YOU CAN 23:56:15 STOP BEING A BEAST. >> YOU THINK I'M A BEAST? 23:56:26 >> YEAH. WE WERE JUST SINGING ABOUT IT. 23:56:28 BEAUTY AND THE BEAST [ LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE ] 23:56:34 >> NO, IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 23:56:36 >> WHOA. THIS IS AWKWARD. 23:56:37 [ LAUGHTER ] >> HOW COULD YOU THINK I WAS THE 23:56:41 BEAST? >> BEAST IS A STRONG WORD. 23:56:44 YOU'RE THE ONE WHO STARTED THROWING "BEAST" AROUND. 23:56:50 I'D SAY YOU'RE LIKE A 6. >> A 6? 23:56:55 IN MY VILLAGE, I'M CONSIDERED A GREAT BEAUTY. 23:56:57 >> OH, NO, I KNOW. I'M SURE. 23:57:00 IT'S JUST THAT YOU'RE -- WELL, YOU'RE VERY SLENDER. 23:57:03 AND I DON'T KNOW, I LIKE -- I LIKE A BIG ASS. 23:57:14 >> WHAT? >> I LIKE A BIG ASS! 23:57:21 TALE AS OLD AS TIME [ LAUGHTER ] 23:57:24 >> NO, NO, NO, NO, WAIT A MINUTE. 23:57:25 WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT A MINUTE. 23:57:28 WHAT WERE YOU HOPING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN? 23:57:29 >> WE WOULD SHARE A TRUE LOVE KISS AND THE YOU'D TRANSFORM SO 23:57:32 THAT YOU'D HAVE, YOU KNOW, A BIG OLD ASS! 23:57:34 >> THAT IS SICK. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU THOUGHT YOU 23:57:37 WERE THE BEAUTY. >> WHAT'S SO CRAZY ABOUT THAT? 23:57:41 >> LUMIERE, GET IN HERE. >> BONSOIR. 23:57:48 [ LAUGHTER ] >> WHO IS THE BEAUTY AND WHO IS 23:57:51 THE BEAST? >> YOU BOTH LOOK LIKE BEASTS TO 23:57:52 ME. >> WHAT? 23:57:55 >> WELL, I AM A CANDELABRA, I AM ONLY ATTRACTED TO OTHER 23:57:57 CANDELABRAS. ALTHOUGH, ONCE IN COLLEGE I 23:58:00 DATED A MENORAH. [ LAUGHTER ] 23:58:10 >> I THINK, BEAUTY'S IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. 23:58:12 >> INDEED IT IS. FOR INSTANCE, I AM A CLOCK. 23:58:16 >> SO YOU'RE ONLY ATTRACTED TO OTHER CLOCKS? 23:58:20 >> NO. I LIKE WOMEN LIKE YOU. 23:58:22 >> THANK YOU. >> BUT WITH, LIKE, LIKE A BIG 23:58:25 ASS. [ LAUGHTER ] 23:58:29 OR LIKE A, LIKE A 3:45 ASS. >> WHAT? 23:58:31 >> I'M SORRY. THAT'S CLOCK SLANG, LIKE A 23:58:35 3:45 ASS. [ LAUGHTER ] 23:58:38 YOU KNOW, LIKE A TEAPOT OVER THERE. 23:58:43 >> WELL, THEN, WHY DON'T YOU ALL JUST GO HOOK UP WITH HER? 23:58:46 >> WELL, WE DO. ALL THE TIME. 23:58:49 [ LAUGHTER ] >> WHY DO YOU THINK SHE LIVES 23:58:54 HERE WITH US? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANY OF US 23:58:56 DRINK TEA? >> OKAY, FREAKS. 23:58:58 I'M LEAVING. YOU KNOW WHAT? 23:59:02 HAVE FUN IN YOUR ASS CASTLE. >> HOW DOES SHE KNOW WE CALL IT 23:59:07 AN ASS CASTLE? >> ANYONE CARE FOR A TEA PARTY? 23:59:17 BEAUTY AND THE BEAST [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] 23:59:55 >>> ME REMEMBER HIM NOW. HE BEAT UP HOOKER. 23:59:58 THROW HOOKER THROUGH PLATE GLASS WINDOW, MANY STITCH. 00:00:04 >> CUSTOMER LIKE THAT CAUSE MANY PROBLEM. 00:00:07 STATE GAMING COMMISSION TAKE LICENSE FROM MOHAWK. 00:00:10 >> GAMING COMMISSION LIKE BLADES OF GRASS. 00:00:19 PRIDE ONE, 100 MORE GROW BACK. ME SOMETIMES THINK -- 00:00:28 [ LAUGHTER ] >> CHIEF, WANT TO PLAY CARDS? 00:00:34 [ LAUGHTER ] >> MY ANCESTORS BACK TO DAYS 00:00:43 WHERE WE ONLY HAD BINGO AND ONE -- 00:00:46 [ LAUGHTER ] >>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, 00:02:17 SHAKIRA. 00:02:34 LET'S GO S.O.S. SHE'S IN DISGUISE 00:02:45 S.O.S. SHE'S IN DISGUISE THERE'S A SHE WOLF 00:02:49 IN DISGUISE COMING OUT, COMING OUT, 00:02:53 COMING OUT A DOMESTICATED GIRL 00:02:57 THAT'S ALL YOU ASK OF ME DARLING IT IS NO JOKE 00:03:02 THIS IS LYCANTHROPY THE MOON'S AWAKE NOW 00:03:05 WITH EYES WIDE OPEN MY BODY'S CRAVING 00:03:09 SO FEED THE HUNGRY I'VE BEEN DEVOTING MYSELF 00:03:12 TO YOU MONDAY TO MONDAY AND FRIDAY TO FRIDAY 00:03:15 NOT GETTING ENOUGH RETRIBUTION 00:03:17 OR DECENT INCENTIVES TO KEEP ME AT IT 00:03:18 I'M STARTING TO FEEL JUST A LITTLE ABUSED LIKE A COFFEE 00:03:21 MACHINE IN AN OFFICE SO I'M GONNA GO SOMEWHERE 00:03:24 COZY TO GET ME A LOVER AND TELL YOU ALL ABOUT IT 00:03:28 THERE'S A SHE WOLF IN YOUR CLOSET 00:03:32 OPEN UP AND SET HER FREE THERE'S A SHE WOLF 00:03:36 IN YOUR CLOSET LET IT OUT 00:03:41 SO IT CAN BREATHE SITTING ACROSS A BAR 00:03:53 STARING RIGHT AT HER PREY IT'S GOING WELL SO FAR 00:03:57 SHE'S GONNA GET HER WAY NOCTURNAL CREATURES ARE 00:04:00 NOT SO PRUDENT THE MOON'S MY TEACHER 00:04:04 AND I'M HER STUDENT TO LOCATE THE SINGLE MEN 00:04:08 I GOT ON ME A SPECIAL RADAR AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT 00:04:11 HOTLINE IN CASE I GET IN TROUBLE LATER 00:04:14 NOT LOOKING FOR CUTE LITTLE DIVOS OR RICH CITY GUYS THAT 00:04:17 JUST WANT TO ENJOY BUT HAVING A VERY GOOD TIME 00:04:19 AND BEHAVE VERY BAD IN THE ARMS OF A BOY 00:04:22 THERE'S A SHE WOLF IN THE CLOSET 00:04:26 OPEN UP AND SET HER FREE 00:04:30 THERE'S A SHE WOLF IN YOUR CLOSET 00:04:33 LET IT OUT SO IT CAN BREATHE 00:04:40 S.O.S. SHE'S IN DISGUISE S.O.S. SHE'S IN DISGUISE 00:04:45 THERE'S A SHE WOLF IN DISGUISE 00:04:49 COMING OUT, COMING OUT, COMING OUT 00:04:54 S.O.S. SHE'S IN DISGUISE S.O.S. SHE'S IN DISGUISE 00:05:02 THERE'S A SHE WOLF IN DISGUISE 00:05:05 COMING OUT, COMING OUT, COMING OUT 00:05:14 THERE'S A SHE WOLF 00:05:20 IN YOUR CLOSET LET IT OUT 00:05:23 SO IT CAN BREATHE [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] 00:05:29 >> THANK YOU. >>> CLOSE YOUR MOUTH! 00:06:45 [ LAUGHTER ] -- IN MY CELL BURNING AND HE'S 00:07:01 GOING TO SPEND HIS WEEKEND HOSTING A BEACH PARTY IN A 00:07:06 MANSION. >> COME ON. 00:08:33 >>> Announcer: "WEEKEND UPDATE" WITH SETH MEYERS. 00:08:36 [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] >> I'M SETH MEYERS, AND HERE ARE 00:08:40 TONIGHT'S TOP STORIES. >>> ON THURSDAY, A BOY HID IN A 00:08:46 BOX. SO I GUESS THAT WAS A FASTER WAY 00:08:48 TO TELL THAT STORY. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:08:56 . AFTER THE SENATE FINANCE 00:08:57 COMMITTEE APPROVED THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL THIS WEEK, 00:09:00 PRESIDENT OBAMA DECLARED WE'RE CLOSER BEFORE THAN PASSING 00:09:04 HEALTH CARE REFORM, CLOSER THAN I WAS EVER BEFORE TO BEING 300 00:09:07 YEARS OLD. >>> REPUBLICAN SENATOR 00:09:11 OLYMPIA SNOWE WARNED TUESDAY THAT WHILE SHE CROSSED PARTY 00:09:14 LINES TO VOTE FOR THE NEW HEALTH CARE BILL IN COMMITTEE, THAT 00:09:16 DOESN'T MEAN SHE WILL VOTE FOR IT WHEN IT REACHES THE SENATE 00:09:17 FLOOR. ADDING, "COME ON, GUYS, CHASE 00:09:24 ME." OLYMPIA SNOWE'S VOTE WAS HAILED 00:09:26 AS A VICTORY FOR BIPARTISANSHIP. SO NOW YOU ONLY NEED ONE 00:09:28 REPUBLICAN TO BE BIPARTISAN? THOSE ARE PRETTY LOW STANDARDS. 00:09:32 THAT'S LIKE SAYING YOU'RE BILINGUAL IF YOU SAY HOLA TO THE 00:09:34 NANNY. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:09:40 >>> IN A SPEECH TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, THE NATION'S 00:09:42 LARGEST GAY RIGHTS GROUP, PRESIDENT OBAMA ON SATURDAY 00:09:45 PLEDGED TO END THE MILITARY'S "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" POLICY. 00:09:48 EVEN BETTER FOR GAYS, IT'S BEING REPLACED WITH A NEW POLICY, 00:09:51 "TRUTH OR DARE." >>> HERE TO OFFER THEIR 00:09:58 PERSPECTIVE ON THE ENDING OF THE MILITARY'S DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL 00:10:03 POLICY, TWO GAY GUYS FROM NEW JERSEY WHO ARE IN THE MILITARY. 00:10:13 >> THANKS FOR BEING HERE, GUYS. YOU'VE BEEN HERE TO TALK ABOUT 00:10:21 WHAT IT IS LIKE BEING GAY IN NEW JERSEY. 00:10:22 AND HERE TONIGHT, YOU'RE HERE TONIGHT TO ADMIT YOU'RE GAY AND 00:10:24 IN THE MILITARY? >> OH! 00:10:26 NOT AT ALL. SEE, WE WOULD NEVER DO THAT, 00:10:28 SETH. IF WE ADMITTED THAT, WE WOULD 00:10:31 GET KICKED OUT. >> AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET 00:10:33 KICKED OUT. WE LOVE THE ARMY. 00:10:34 >> YEAH, DEFENDING THIS GREAT LAND. 00:10:36 >> STANDING UP FOR FREEDOM. >> GOING ON MISSIONS. 00:10:37 KNOW WHAT THE BEST PART OF MISSIONS IS, SETH? 00:10:39 >> WHAT? >> THE DEBRIEFING. 00:10:42 >> THIS ONE CAN'T WAIT TO GET DEBRIEFED. 00:10:43 >> HEY! >> SO WAIT. 00:10:48 ARE YOU GUYS GAY? >> ONE DAY OUR MILITARY WILL 00:10:51 MOVE INTO THIS CENTURY, SETH. UNTIL THEN, I CAN ONLY IDENTIFY 00:10:53 MYSELF BY NAME AND RANK. PRIVATE FIRST CLASS TONY DONATO. 00:10:59 >> WHEREAS I IDENTIFY HIM BY HIS FIRST CLASS PRIVATES. 00:11:02 >> HOO-AH! >> I GOT TO SAY, THE WAY YOU 00:11:09 GUYS ARE ACTING IS GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK YOU'RE GAY. 00:11:15 >> YOU KNOW, THEY CAN THINK WHAT THEY WANT, BUT THEY CAN'T ASK. 00:11:18 IF THEY WANT TO KNOW, THEY'LL HAVE TO REPEAL THIS 00:11:20 DISCRIMINATORY POLICY. >> AND UNTIL THEN, WE'RE GOING 00:11:21 TO JUST GO ABOUT OUR ARMY BUSINESS. 00:11:27 >> STRIPPING AND CLEANING OUR RIFLES, POLISHING OUR HELMETS. 00:11:34 YOU SHOULD SEE HOW SHINY HE GETS IT. 00:11:39 YOU CAN SEE YOUR REFLECTION IN HIS HELMET. 00:11:43 >> YEAH. YOU LOVE TO SEE YOUR REFLECTION 00:11:44 IN IT. >> YOU LOVE IT WHEN IT REFLECTS 00:11:46 ME. >> HOO-AH. 00:11:52 >> HOO-AH. >> GUYS, GUYS, COME ON, THAT'S 00:11:58 ENOUGH. >> LOOK, SETH, WE MAY OR MAY NOT 00:12:12 BE GAY, BUT WE LOVE OUR COUNTRY. SO MUCH THAT WE'RE WILLING TO 00:12:17 MAKE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. >> RISKING LIFE FOR COUNTRY? 00:12:19 >> OH, THAT TOO, BUT I MEANT WEARING KHAKI. 00:12:22 [ LAUGHTER ] >> IT REALLY SEEMS LIKE YOU GUYS 00:12:26 MIGHT BE GAY. >> ALL I CAN SAY IS I'M HONORED 00:12:28 TO SERVE IN THE GREATEST MILITARY ON EARTH. 00:12:31 >> WELL, ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE AT "WEEKEND UPDATE," I WANT TO 00:12:33 THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR SERVICE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 00:12:38 AND WE'RE GOING TO GET BACK TO THE BASE. 00:12:40 >> OH, YEAH? WHERE ARE YOU GUYS STATIONED? 00:12:43 >> FT. DIX. HOO-AH! 00:12:45 >> TWO GUYS FROM NEW JERSEY WHO ARE IN THE MILITARY. 00:12:54 >>> THE DOW JONES ON THURSDAY ROSE PAST THE 10,000 MARK FOR 00:12:57 FIRST TIME IN OVER A YEAR. "HOORAY," SHOUTED 15 MILLION 00:13:01 UNEMPLOYED AMERICANS WATCHING CNN IN THEIR PAJAMAS IN THE 00:13:03 MIDDLE OF THE DAY. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:13:17 >>> IN OTHER NEWS THIS WEEK, THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE VOTED 00:13:21 TO -- OH, NO. IT IS THE BALLOON FROM COLORADO. 00:13:24 >> HEY, SETH, HOW IS IT GOING? >> GET OUT OF HERE, BALLOON. 00:13:27 >> WHY? >> BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT NEWS. 00:13:29 >> BUT I WAS ON THE NEWS FOR A WHOLE DAY. 00:13:31 >> THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU NEWS, BALLOON. 00:13:34 >> WHAT IF I TOLD YOU I HAD A BOY INSIDE OF ME. 00:13:37 >> DO YOU HAVE A BOY INSIDE OF YOU, BALLOON? 00:13:39 >> NO. >> YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF HERE, 00:13:44 BALLOON. >> SETH? >> I'M SORRY. 00:13:50 NOT MY FAULT. >> IT IS OKAY, BALLOON. 00:13:52 >> I'M JUST A BALLOON. >> NOBODY'S BLAMING YOU, 00:13:56 BALLOON. >> REALLY? >> OKAY. 00:13:57 I'M GOING TO GO. >> ALL RIGHT, BYE, BALLOON. 00:13:59 >> OH, SETH? >> WHAT. 00:14:01 >> IT WAS A HOAX. >> YEAH, WE KNOW. 00:14:05 THE BALLOON FROM COLORADO, EVERYBODY. 00:14:11 >>> A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE IN LOUISIANA REFUSED TO ISSUE A 00:14:14 MARRIAGE LICENSE TO AN INTERRACIAL COUPLE. 00:14:16 HE DEFENDED HIS ACTIONS SAYING, "I'M NOT A RACIST, I JUST DON'T 00:14:19 BELIEVE IN MIXING THE RACES THAT WAY." 00:14:21 OKAY, JUST A TIP FOR ALL YOU RACISTS OUT THERE. 00:14:24 NEVER FOLLOW A DENIAL OF RACISM WITH THE DEFINITION. 00:14:29 [ LAUGHTER ] >>> NOW WITH A SPECIAL MESSAGE, 00:14:40 SCOTLAND'S FAVORITE SON, GERARD BUTLER. 00:14:44 >> HI, SETH. >> SO WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND? 00:14:47 >> WELL, SETH, YOU KNOW, MY FAMILY, THEY'RE VERY EXCITED 00:14:50 THAT I'M HOSTING TONIGHT SO THEY'RE ALL WATCHING LIVE ON 00:14:53 SATELLITE BACK IN SCOTLAND. AND I WAS HOPING I COULD TAKE A 00:14:57 MOMENT TO SAY HELLO TO THEM. >> YEAH, OF COURSE. 00:14:59 >> OKAY, AND I'LL BE SPEAKING TO MY FAMILY IN MY NATIVE SCOTTISH 00:15:05 TONGUE SO YOU TO MIND INTERPRETING? 00:15:07 >> YEAH, MY SCOTTISH ISN'T GREAT BUT I'LL DO MY BEST. 00:15:09 >> GREAT, LET'S DO IT. CAN I HAVE SOME MUSIC PLEASE? 00:15:20 >> MA, DA, LOOK AT ME HERE. 00:15:23 I'M ON THE TELLY. >> MOTHER, FATHER, LOOK AT ME, I 00:15:24 AM ON TELEVISION. >> I'M A WEE BIT KNACKERED FROM 00:15:29 THE WEEK, AND I HOPE TONIGHT GOES WELL. 00:15:31 >> I AM A LITTLE BIT SLEEPY TIRED, BUT I KNOW TONIGHT WILL 00:15:33 BE 100% AWESOME. >> THIS WEEK HAS BEEN FUN DABBY 00:15:41 DOZY, MOST FUN SINCE I MADE "300." 00:15:43 THAT MOVIE WAS GREAT. >> THIS WEEK HAS BEEN GOOD. 00:15:47 THIS IS THE MOST FUN I'VE HAD SINCE I MADE "300." 00:15:51 MAN, THAT MOVIE WAS GAY. >> NEW YORK IS PURE BRILLIANT, 00:16:03 BY THE WAY. THERE ARE SO MANY COLORFUL 00:16:05 CHARACTERS. >> I HAVE MET A LOT OF JEWISH 00:16:07 PEOPLE. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:16:14 >> I WAS WALKING HOME FROM THE STUDIO LAST NIGHT, THE BUILDINGS 00:16:18 WERE ALL LIT UP. I BUMPED INTO THIS LITTLE BONNIE 00:16:21 BIRD NEAR THE PARK. TURNS OUT SHE WAS STAYING RIGHT 00:16:23 IN MY HOTEL. IT'S WHAT FOLKS HERE CALL A NEW 00:16:26 YORK MOMENT. >> I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SLEPT 00:16:30 WITH A PROSTITUTE LAST NIGHT. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:16:34 >> HEY, LITTLE COUSIN DONALD, IF YOU'RE WATCHING RIGHT NOW, I'VE 00:16:38 GOT A MESSAGE FOR YOU. [ THICK SCOTTISH BROGUE ] 00:16:49 >> I DEFINITELY SLEPT WITH A PROSTITUTE. 00:16:53 >> WELL, THAT'S IT, I GUESS. I MISS YOU ALL. 00:16:55 I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE YOU AGAIN AND HEAR THE SWEET BELLS OF 00:16:58 PAISLEY ABBEY. >> I'M NEVER COMING BACK TO 00:17:00 SCOTLAND. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:17:06 >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, SETH. >> GERARD BUTLER, EVERYONE! 00:17:15 SO GLAD I TOOK SCOTTISH IN COLLEGE. 00:17:17 >>> IT WAS REVEALED THIS WEEK THAT THE CAST OF THE UPCOMING 00:17:20 CELEBRITY APPRENTICE WILL INCLUDE SHARON OSBOURNE, SINBAD 00:17:24 AND ROD BLAGOJEVICH. I THINK WE FINALLY REACHED THE 00:17:35 POINT IN OUR SOCIETY WHERE CELEBRITY JUST MEANS MAMMAL. 00:17:38 [ LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE ] >>> THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH CARE 00:17:46 RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE IN NEW YORK STATE BANNED BEER 00:17:48 PONG THIS WEEK AFTER SEVERAL STUDENTS GOT SWINE FLU FROM 00:17:49 PLAYING THE POPULAR DRINKING GAME. 00:17:50 THOUGH IT COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF ANOTHER POPULAR 00:17:52 DRINKING GAME, "MAKE OUT WITH A STRANGER." 00:17:57 >>> A COMPANY THAT DESIGNS FONTS IS SUING NBC FOR $2 MILLION FOR 00:17:59 TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT FOR USING THEIR FONTS DURING A RECENT 00:18:01 AD CAMPAIGN. JOKE'S ON THEM. 00:18:03 WE DON'T HAVE $2 MILLION. >>> A DISABLED MAN IN GEORGIA 00:18:11 WHO HAD HAD HIS WALLET STOLEN AT GUNPOINT SAID ALL HE WANTS BACK 00:18:13 IS HIS LUCKY PENNY THAT WAS IN THE WALLET. 00:18:17 I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THAT LUCKY, MAN WHO WAS ROBBED AT 00:18:19 GUNPOINT. >>> "GLAMOUR" MAGAZINE RECENTLY 00:18:23 PROFILED A GROUP OF WOMEN WHO SUFFER FROM A RARE CONDITION 00:18:25 CALLED PGAD, OR "PERSISTENT GENITAL AROUSAL DISORDER," AN 00:18:30 ACTUAL CONDITION IN WHICH WOMEN EXPERIENCE NUMEROUS UNWANTED 00:18:33 ORGASMS THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE DAY. 00:18:35 HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT IS RECOVERING PGAD SUFFERER 00:18:37 TAMERA PARKS. [ APPLAUSE ] 00:18:47 >> HI. LITTLE EMBARRASSING. 00:18:49 >> YEAH, I CAN IMAGINE THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE AND PERSONAL 00:18:51 TOPIC. >> IT IS. 00:18:56 HOPEFULLY BY COMING HERE I'M ABLE TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS 00:18:59 VERY MISUNDERSTOOD CONDITION. IT IS NOT AS FUN AS IT SOUNDS. 00:19:03 BEFORE I GOT TREATMENT, I WAS HAVING 200 EPISODES A DAY. 00:19:08 >> AND WHEN YOU SAY EPISODES, YOU MEAN -- 00:19:09 >> HEAD TO TOE SCREAMING ORGASMS. 00:19:11 >> OH. >> YEAH, YEAH. 00:19:12 IT CAN REALLY SCREW UP YOUR DAY. >> SO WHAT CAUSES PGAD? 00:19:19 >> DOCTORS AREN'T SURE, AND IT CAN BE TRIGGERED BY ALMOST 00:19:25 ANYTHING, EXERCISE, GOING UP AND DOWN STAIRS, BUMPY CAR RIDE, 00:19:28 MUSIC WITH TOO MUCH BASS. COLD WIND, WARM WIND. 00:19:38 >> THAT'S TERRIBLE. >> BUT LUCKILY WITH THE HELP OF 00:19:46 MY PHYSICIAN, I'M ABLE TO FIND TREATMENT. 00:19:48 AND TODAY I CAN SAY THAT I AM FULLY -- HNN. 00:19:53 SORRY. I AM FULLY -- 00:19:59 [ LAUGHTER ] ONE SECOND. 00:20:02 OKAY. I'M FINE. 00:20:04 WAIT A MINUTE. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:20:25 >> ARE YOU OKAY? >> YES. 00:20:29 MM-HMM. MM-HMM. 00:20:33 I THOUGHT SOMETHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT IT DIDN'T. 00:20:43 OKAY. IS THERE A SUBWAY UNDER THIS 00:20:45 BUILDING? [ LAUGHTER ] 00:20:48 >> ACTUALLY, THE "B" TRAIN RUNS RIGHT UNDERNEATH US. 00:20:50 >> OKAY, YEAH, THOUGHT SO. OKAY. 00:20:55 IT'S GONE. I'M FINE. 00:20:57 AS I WAS SAYING, IS THERE A WIND IN HERE? 00:21:00 IS THERE A WIND? >> NO. 00:21:01 NO WIND. >> OH, MERRY CHRISTMAS. 00:21:10 OH, THAT DOESN'T HELP. I THINK I SHOULD GO. 00:21:16 >> OKAY. >> WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING. 00:21:21 [ LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE ] I JUST MEANT -- 00:21:33 >> THAT'S OKAY. I HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE. 00:21:35 I'M FINE NOW. >> CAN I HELP YOU UP. 00:21:41 >> NO. >> SORRY. 00:21:43 >> THANK YOU. >> TAMERA PARKS, EVERYONE! 00:21:55 >>> NORA, A 5-YEAR-OLD CAT WHO LIKES TO BANG PIANO KEYS AS 00:21:56 SHE'S ACT ACTUALLY PLAYING HAS BEEN NAMED CAT OF THE YEAR BY 00:21:58 THE ASPCA. AS IN, "HONEY, THE CAT OF THE 00:21:59 YEAR JUST THREW UP AGAIN." [ LAUGHTER ] 00:22:04 YOU GUYS FELL FOR THAT CAT. >>> STARTING MONDAY, 7-ELEVEN 00:22:09 WILL START TESTING A NEW PLASTIC WRAP TO KEEP BANANAS FIRM FOR 00:22:14 FIVE DAYS. THOUGH IF YOUR BANANA REMAINS 00:22:18 FIRM FOR MORE THAN FIVE DAYS, CALL YOUR DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY. 00:22:23 >>> FOR "WEEKEND UPDATE," I'M SETH MEYERS. 00:22:44 >>> SHE ENJOYED GOING TO THE SUPERMARKET WEARING COLORFUL 00:22:48 TURBANS. ME TOO. 00:22:49 >> SHE'S OKAY. SHE'S BACK. 00:22:50 >> IN THE EARLY '90s, SHE APPEARED NUDE -- 00:22:56 [ LAUGHTER ] >> SORRY. 00:23:02 >> WE APOLOGIZE. SO SORRY. 00:23:07 >> AN ORANGUTAN IN A MALAYSIAN WILDLIFE SANCTUARY SNATCHED A 00:23:12 FRENCH TOURIST BACKPACK AND BIT HER WHILE PULLING OFF HER SHOES, 00:23:15 SOCKS AND PANTS. THOUGH IN THE ORANGUTAN'S 00:23:18 DEFENSE, THAT HAD TO HAVE TAKEN A LITTLE -- SORRY. 00:23:28 >> ABOUT 100 SMALL BOATS CARRYING SEAL HUNTERS WERE 00:23:32 TRAPPED BY THICK ICE OFF CANADA'S ATLANTIC COAST. 00:23:34 AFTER A DAY, THE ICE THAWED ENOUGH FOR THEM TO KILL A WHOLE 00:23:38 BUNCH OF SEALS. >> OH, SETH. 00:23:40 >> FOR YOU, DRESS REHEARSAL. THAT WILL NOT BE RECYCLED. 00:24:23 >>> FROM PHILADELPHIA, IT IS BUD LIGHT'S GOLDEN WHEAT'S EXCLUSIVE 00:24:27 "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" VIEWING PARTY. 00:24:28 WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. WE'RE HERE LIVE IN NEW YORK, AND 00:24:30 YOU COULD BE TOO. JUST GO TO NBC.COM TO ENTER THE 00:24:37 GOLDEN LIGHT "SNL" SWEEPSTAKES FOR YOUR CHANCE TO WIN TICKETS 00:24:42 TO "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE." YOU ARE ABOUT 00:25:13 TO ENTER A PLACE... A PLACE WHERE TIME 00:25:15 AND SPACE COLLIDE... WHERE YOU CAN SHARE... 00:25:21 BUZZ... DESTROY... 00:25:24 A PLACE THAT WILL LAUNCH A BILLION YODELS... 00:25:28 A PLACE SHAPED LIKE YOU... BROUGHT TO YOU... 00:25:31 MADE...BY YOU. IT STARTS WITH YOU... 00:25:35 STARTING TODAY. YAHOO. 00:25:39 YAHOO IT'S YOU. 00:25:55 >>> SPARTANS, A NEW AGE HAS BEGUN. 00:25:57 AN AGE OF FREEDOM. AND ALL WILL KNOW THAT 00:26:02 300 SPARTANS GAVE THEIR LAST BREATH TO DEFEND IT. 00:26:07 [ BATTLE CRY ] >> EXCUSE ME, KING LEONIDAS. 00:26:15 REAL QUICK BEFORE WE GO INTO BATTLE, A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN 00:26:18 WONDERING ABOUT THAT PROMISE YOU MADE A WHILE AGO. 00:26:21 >> OH, RIGHT. I KNOW. 00:26:27 WELL, ABOUT A YEAR AGO I PROMISED TO RESCIND SPARTA'S 00:26:31 "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" POLICY. AND I STILL INTEND TO DO THAT AT 00:26:35 SOME POINT, BUT NOW'S NOT REALLY THE TIME. 00:26:37 >> IT'S NEVER THE TIME, LEONIDAS. 00:26:40 >> LOOK, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW. 00:26:45 WE'RE IN A WAR IF YOU HADN'T NOTICED. 00:26:49 THE ECONOMY IS BAD. AND WHAT DOES IT MATTER ANYWAY? 00:26:52 WE ARE THE GREATEST ARMY EVER ASSEMBLED. 00:26:54 IT'S NOT LIKE ANY OF YOU ARE GAY. 00:26:58 >> RIGHT. >> I MEAN, TAKE ASTINOS, HERE. 00:27:07 ASTINOS, WHO DESIGNED OUR UNIFORMS. 00:27:09 ARE YOU TELLING ME YOU'RE GAY? >> ARE YOU ASKING FOR YOURSELF 00:27:11 OR A FRIEND? [ LAUGHTER ] 00:27:15 >> VERY FUNNY. AND STEPHANOS AND ENOCH. 00:27:22 INSEPARABLE FRIENDS. NOW WHEN STEPHANOS JOINED THIS 00:27:25 ARMY, YOU TOOK HIM UNDER YOUR WING. 00:27:26 >> I DID. >> YOU COULD ALMOST SAY 00:27:30 STEPHANOS IS LIKE A SON TO YOU. >> OH, PLEASE, DON'T PUT IT LIKE 00:27:32 THAT. >> EVERY NIGHT YOU TWO WOULD 00:27:37 WALK IN THE WOODS, TOGETHER, FOR HOURS. 00:27:41 NOW, IMAGINE HOW AWKWARD THOSE WALKS WOULD BE IF ONE OF YOU 00:27:43 WERE GAY. >> WELL, THAT WOULD BE AWKWARD 00:27:48 IF ONE OF US WERE GAY. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:27:55 >> LEONIDAS IS RIGHT. LOOK, I'M AS STRAIGHT AS THEY 00:28:00 COME AND I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIGHT IF I THOUGHT SOME GAY GUY 00:28:02 WAS CHECKING OUT MY BODY. >> YEAH, I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT 00:28:06 THAT. >> NOW, PLEASE, PUT YOURSELF IN 00:28:11 MY POSITION. I HAVE PUBLIC OPINION TO KEEP IN 00:28:14 MIND. 40% OF SPARTA CONSIDERS 00:28:17 HOMOSEXUALITY AN ILLNESS. >> WELL, 40% OF SPARTA DOESN'T 00:28:21 BELIEVE YOU WERE BORN IN GREECE. >> I HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE. 00:28:32 >> WE'RE NOT FIGHTING UNTIL YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND. 00:28:35 >> ALL RIGHT. SEEMS I HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. 00:28:38 I DIDN'T BECOME LEADER OF AN ARMY THIS TOUGH, THIS 00:28:42 AGGRESSIVE, THIS -- WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? 00:28:44 >> FIERCE! >> EXACTLY. 00:28:50 FIERCE. I DIDN'T BECOME LEADER OF AN 00:28:53 ARMY THIS FIERCE BY CLINGING TO MY POPULARITY. 00:28:56 SO AS OF TODAY, I DECLARE SPARTA'S "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL" 00:29:00 BAN OFFICIALLY REPEALED. YES? 00:29:08 SO IF YOU'RE GAY, FEEL FREE TO RAISE YOUR HAND, PROUDLY AND 00:29:11 PUBLICLY. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:29:18 OKAY, OKAY. I KNOW YOU ALL WANT TO SUPPORT 00:29:26 YOUR FELLOW SOLDIERS, BUT WHO HERE IS ACTUALLY GAY? 00:29:31 [ LAUGHTER ] REALLY? 00:29:34 EVERYONE? EVEN YOU, STILIOS? 00:29:42 >> YEAH. >> SO WHEN YOU OIL ME UP BEFORE 00:29:46 BATTLE -- >> NO STRATEGIC VALUE. 00:29:49 JUST WANTED TO GET MY HANDS ON YOU. 00:29:52 [ LAUGHTER ] >> AND THE LEATHER SHEATH YOU 00:29:58 MADE ME FOR MY PENIS? >> I JUST NEEDED A REASON TO 00:30:02 MEASURE IT. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:00:00 00:29:01 SPARTA'S "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL" BAN OFFICIALLY REPEALED. 00:29:06 YES? SO IF YOU'RE GAY, FEEL FREE TO 00:29:12 RAISE YOUR HAND, PROUDLY AND PUBLICLY. 00:29:16 [ LAUGHTER ] OKAY, OKAY. 00:29:27 I KNOW YOU ALL WANT TO SUPPORT YOUR FELLOW SOLDIERS, BUT WHO 00:29:30 HERE IS ACTUALLY GAY? [ LAUGHTER ] 00:29:35 REALLY? EVERYONE? 00:29:43 EVEN YOU, STILIOS? >> YEAH. 00:29:47 >> SO WHEN YOU OIL ME UP BEFORE BATTLE -- 00:29:49 >> NO STRATEGIC VALUE. JUST WANTED TO GET MY HANDS ON 00:29:52 YOU. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:29:58 >> AND THE LEATHER SHEATH YOU MADE ME FOR MY PENIS? 00:30:02 >> I JUST NEEDED A REASON TO MEASURE IT. 00:30:06 [ LAUGHTER ] >> ALL THE TIMES WE HAD SEX 00:30:16 >> OH, SO GAY REASONS. >> ALL RIGHT. 00:30:20 WELL, YOU'RE STILL THE GREATEST ARMY ON EARTH. 00:30:24 AND IF WE LIVE TO SEE TOMORROW, I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE A GOOD LAUGH 00:30:27 ABOUT THIS IN THE BATH HOUSE. OH, THE BATH HOUSE! 00:30:31 OKAY, THIS IS ALL STARTING TO MAKE MORE SENSE. 00:30:38 BUT TONIGHT WE DIE IN HELL! [ CHEERS ] 00:31:26 >>> FROM CHICAGO, IT IS BUD LIGHT'S GOLDEN WHEAT'S EXCLUSIVE 00:31:30 "SNL" VIEWING PARTY. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. 00:31:46 [ LAUGHTER ] >> OKAY, YOU GUYS. 00:31:55 [ RINGING ] HOLD ON. 00:32:12 HELLO? YES. 00:32:15 REALLY? SPLENDID. 00:32:18 WE'RE GOING TO THE DOLCE GABBANA SHOW. 00:32:22 HOW FAST CAN YOU HAVE YOUR BAGS PACKED FOR MILAN? 00:32:28 >> I GOT MY BAG PACKED ALREADY. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:32:43 >> WANT TO SEE "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE" IN PERSON? 00:32:44 ENTER THE BUD LIGHT GOLDEN WHEAT "SNL" SWEEPSTAKES AND YOU AND A 00:32:49 FRIEND COULD WIN A TRIP TO NEW YORK AND TICKETS TO SEE THE SHOW 00:32:51 LIVE. JUST GO TO NBC.COM FOR ALL THE 00:32:54 DETAILS. 00:34:00 IT'S "WHAT'S UP WITH THAT," TACKLING THE ISSUES OF TODAY 00:34:05 WITH SOUL, WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST AND AUTHOR, LESLIE 00:34:10 FOREE, JAMES FRANCO, AND MUSICIAN LIZZIE BUCKINGHAM. 00:34:15 AND NOW, HERE'S YOUR HOST D'ANDRE COLE. 00:34:21 WOKE UP THIS MORNING AND I GOT OUT OF BED 00:34:23 HAD A BIG OLD CUP OF COFFEE TO CLEAR MY HEAD 00:34:25 TELEPHONE RANG AND YOU WANT TO CHAT 00:34:28 WELL, SIT ON DOWN AND TELL ME "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:34:31 OH WEE "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:34:36 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" OH WEE 00:34:40 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:34:44 HE SAID, SHE SAID WE SAID, LEE SAID 00:34:52 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" WHO KNEW, YOU KNEW 00:34:53 SAY WHAT, VOODOO "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:34:57 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] 00:35:09 >> ALL RIGHT. WELL, THIS IS "WHAT'S UP WITH 00:35:11 THAT?" WE GOT THREE WONDERFUL GUESTS 00:35:14 HERE JOINING ME. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT 00:35:17 PEOPLE. GOING TO TALK ABOUT PLACES. 00:35:20 WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT 00:35:27 FINGERS. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT FACES. 00:35:29 WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT -- THINGS PERTAINING TO YOU 00:35:33 AND YOU AND YOU AND YOU AND YOU, NOT YOU, BUT YOU 00:35:35 AND YOU AND YOU EVERYBODY SAY -- 00:35:37 OOH WEE "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:35:41 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" OOH WEE 00:35:45 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:35:52 I SAID WHAT UP WHAT IS UP 00:35:58 WHAT IS UP WITH THAT "WHAT'S UP WITH THAT" 00:36:07 ET LIKES REESE'S PIECES 00:36:13 [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] >> ALL RIGHT, NOW, THAT WAS FUN. 00:36:17 LET'S MEET A GUEST. SHE IS HERE. 00:36:25 SHE'S A BIOLOGIST FROM A NETWORK CALLED PLANET GREEN. 00:36:29 SHE IS HERE TO GIVE US SOME STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT THE RAIN 00:36:32 FOREST. HER NAME IS LESLIE FOREE. 00:36:33 HELLO, BABY. >> HELLO. 00:36:37 >> NOW, YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DEFORESTATION, IS THAT RIGHT? 00:36:38 >> YES. DID YOU KNOW WE ARE LOSING AN 00:36:39 ACRE AND A HALF OF THE RAIN FOREST EVERY SECOND? 00:36:41 IT'S ONE OF THE EARTH'S GREAT BIOLOGICAL TREASURES, I MEAN -- 00:36:45 BIOLOGICAL TREASURES [ LAUGHTER ] 00:36:48 >> IT WOULD BE TOTALLY CONSUMED IN FOUR YEARS. 00:36:51 TOTALLY CONSUMED YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS -- WE'RE 00:36:54 LOSING DOZENS OF ANIMAL AND INSECT SPECIES EVERY DAY. 00:36:56 ANIMAL AND INSECT SPECIES YEAH 00:37:01 IT'S A TRAGEDY, BABY AND I GOT TO SAY 00:37:03 OOH WEE "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:37:06 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" >> DO I JUST SIT HERE? 00:37:09 TELL IT, NOW TELL IT "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:37:12 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE 00:37:17 GOING TO SLOW IT DOWN HERE FOR JUST A SECOND. 00:37:24 'CAUSE I'M GOING TO TURN TO MY MICROPHONE OVER TO MY GOOD 00:37:32 FRIEND, THE SEXICUTIONER. >> OH, YEAH. 00:37:42 I WANT TO TAKE YOU IN A SPACESHIP. 00:37:45 AND MOVE INTO A PERMANENT ORBIT AROUND URANUS. 00:37:51 I'M GOING TO SEND OUT SOME PROBES. 00:37:56 AND I'M GOING TO EXPLORE ALL YOUR CRATERS. 00:38:02 SO, GIRL, LOWER YOUR SHIELDS, BECAUSE I COME IN PEACE AND I 00:38:05 SAY -- I SAY HEY! HEY, HEY, HEY 00:38:12 HEY HEY OOH WEE 00:38:16 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:38:20 OOH WEE "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:38:24 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GOLD 00:38:29 MEDAL WINNING SKIER, MISS PICABO STREET. 00:38:31 GO PICABO, GO PICABO, GO PICABO, GO PICABO, GO PICABO. 00:38:37 GO PICABO, GO PICABO, GO PICABO, GO PICABO. 00:38:40 OOH WEE "WHAT UP WITH THAT" 00:38:44 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" I SAID WHAT UP 00:38:51 OH YEAH "I SAID WHAT UP" 00:38:54 THE SEX IS CRAZY -- I SAID "WHAT'S UP WITH THAT" 00:39:02 >> IT'S LIKE AN INVASION OF THE BOOTY SNATCHERS. 00:39:04 I SAID WHAT'S UP WITH THAT TELL ME WHAT'S UP WITH THAT 00:39:11 YOU THINK IT IS ALL OVER BUT NOT REALLY 00:39:13 I GOT ONE MORE STORY I WENT DOWNTOWN 00:39:15 TO A PARTY I SAID 00:39:17 CAN I GET IN THEY SAID $5 00:39:21 I SAID NEVER MIND [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] 00:39:31 >> OH! WELL, LOOKS LIKE WE OUT OF TIME. 00:39:34 [ LAUGHTER ] I WANT TO THANK MY GUEST 00:39:39 LESLIE FOREE, AND OUR APOLOGIES TO OUR GUESTS WHO GOT BUMPED. 00:39:44 ACTOR JAMES FRANCO FROM "SPIDER LAND." 00:39:50 AND FROM THE BAND FLEETWOOD MAC, LINDSEY BUCKINGHAM. 00:39:57 LINDSEY, MAN, YOU BEEN LIKE 12 TIMES. 00:39:59 WHAT'S UP WITH THAT? OKAY, UNTIL NEXT TIME, I'M 00:40:03 DEONDRE COLE ASKING YOU -- HEY, HEY, HEY 00:40:04 HEY, HEY OOH WEE 00:40:07 "WHAT UP WITH THAT" WHAT UP WITH THAT 00:40:09 OOH WEE >>> FROM LOS ANGELES, IT IS BUD 00:40:38 LIGHT GOLDEN WHEAT'S EXCLUSIVE "SNL" VIEWING PARTY. 00:40:40 WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> ENJOY. 00:40:49 >> DO YOU KNOW THAT DIANE'S COUSIN -- 00:41:01 [ LAUGHTER ] [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] 00:41:23 >>> HEY, "SNL" FANS, YOU CAN JOIN IN THE FUN TOO. 00:41:27 ENTER THE BUD LIGHT GOLDEN WHEAT "SNL" SWEEPSTAKES AT NBC.COM 00:41:33 EVEN YOU CAN WIN TICKETS AND HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS TO NEW YORK 00:41:35 TO SEE "SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE." >>> SO, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR 00:42:34 COMING HERE AND GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PITCH YOU SOME 00:42:38 IDEAS FOR YOUR NEW AD CAMPAIGN. >> WELL, AS I TOLD YOU, WE'RE 00:42:41 LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE COTTAGE CHEESE SEXY AGAIN. 00:42:44 [ LIGHT LAUGHTER ] I HOPE YOU CAN. 00:42:47 >> WELL, I "CURD" IF YOU GAVE ME A CHANCE. 00:42:51 THAT WAS A COTTAGE CHEESE JOKE. >> I'M IN THE COTTAGE CHEESE 00:42:57 INDUSTRY. I'VE HEARD THEM ALL. 00:42:59 >> YEAH, I'M SORRY. CANDY? 00:43:00 >> NO. >> WELL, LET'S BEGIN. 00:43:03 HERE'S MY FIRST IDEA. NOW, WHAT IF -- 00:43:07 >> HELLO. HELLO. 00:43:11 LOOK AT ME. >> HI, YEAH. 00:43:16 I SEE. MR. BAKLEY, THIS IS MY NEW 00:43:22 SECRETARY, TRINA. >> HI. 00:43:25 OH, HI. >> TRINA, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT 00:43:26 MEETING. DO YOU MIND? 00:43:30 >> THOMAS, I WORK HERE NOW. >> YES, I KNOW. 00:43:36 WE'RE JUST IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. 00:43:39 >> THOMAS, THOMAS. LOOK AT THAT. 00:43:41 WHAT'S THAT? >> THAT'S A POSTER. 00:43:45 >> OH! THOMAS, IT IS EXCITING. 00:43:52 >> TRINA, PLEASE. >> OH, ALL RIGHT. 00:43:55 ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. 00:43:57 OH, ALL RIGHT. >> I'M REALLY SORRY ABOUT THAT. 00:44:08 SO ANYWAY, YOU WANT TO MAKE COTTAGE CHEESE SEXY. 00:44:11 LISTEN TO THIS. A WOMAN IN A BIKINI EATING A 00:44:15 PILE OF COTTAGE CHEESE. >> GO ON. 00:44:18 >> SHE TURNS TO THE CAMERA AND SHE WHISPERS SOMETHING ABOUT 00:44:22 CALCIUM. >> THOMAS, THOMAS, LOOK. 00:44:29 >> WHAT ABOUT IT? >> THOMAS THIS IS FOR THIS. 00:44:36 >> TRINA -- >> DID YOU SEE IT? 00:44:38 >> YES, YES, I DID. YOU PUT A CAP ON A PEN. 00:44:40 THAT'S GREAT. >> THANK YOU. 00:44:45 >> WHY DON'T YOU -- WHY DON'T YOU JUST GIVE IT TO ME? 00:44:48 WHY DON'T YOU GO MAKE YOURSELF A CUP OF COFFEE. 00:44:51 >> YOU TWO NEED A MINUTE? >> NO, NO, NO. 00:44:56 TRINA, I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF YOU NEED ANYTHING. 00:44:58 PLEASE, JUST SHUT THE DOOR. >> THOMAS, THOMAS, YOU'RE MY 00:45:00 BOSS. >> YES, I AM. 00:45:06 THE DOOR? >> THOMAS. 00:45:10 OH, ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT! 00:45:16 >> I AM SO SORRY FOR THE INTERRUPTIONS. 00:45:18 THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. I HIRED TRINA, BECAUSE SHE'S A 00:45:23 FRIEND OF A NEIGHBOR AND HE ASKED ME TO DO HIM A FAVOR. 00:45:30 BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN HIT SEVERAL TIMES BY LIGHTNING. 00:45:32 >> I UNDERSTAND. NO NEED TO EXCHANGE. 00:45:34 LET'S HEAR ANOTHER COTTAGE CHEESE PITCH. 00:45:36 >> OKAY. OKAY, SO PICTURE THIS, 00:45:41 QUEEN LATIFAH, GIANT SPOON, COTTAGE CHEESE, LAMBORGHINI. 00:45:45 >> YOU'RE JUST SAYING WORDS NOW. >> THOMAS, THOMAS. 00:45:48 >> WHAT? >> THOMAS. 00:45:49 LOOK. IT'S A MOUSE. 00:45:54 >> THAT'S NOT A MOUSE. THAT'S A CHOCOLATE DOUGHNUT HOLE 00:45:58 FROM THE BREAK ROOM. >> OH, WELL, WHERE'S THE TAIL? 00:46:01 [ LAUGHTER ] >> IT DOESN'T HAVE THE TAIL. 00:46:05 >> OH, THOMAS. ALL MICE HAVE TAILS. 00:46:06 OH, THOMAS! >> TRINA, HERE IS AN IDEA, WHY 00:46:12 DON'T YOU TAKE YOUR BREAK NOW? >> OH, NO! 00:46:14 I THOUGHT IT WAS A MOUSE. THAT'S WHY IT DIDN'T EAT THE 00:46:18 CHEESE. OH. 00:46:21 I TRIED TO LURE WITH THE CHEESE! OH, CHEESE! 00:46:22 THOMAS! OH, NO, THOMAS! 00:46:26 >> IT IS OKAY, TRINA. I HAVE AN IDEA. 00:46:29 WHY DON'T YOU JUST TAKE THE REST OF THE DAY OFF? 00:46:31 WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS TOMORROW. >> OH, ALL RIGHT! 00:46:36 >> NOW? >> OH, OKAY. 00:46:42 THOMAS! [ LIGHT LAUGHTER ] 00:46:49 >> OKAY, LAST PITCH. >> OKAY, I'M SORRY. 00:46:51 THOMAS, IS IT? I HAVE TO RUN, ALL RIGHT? 00:46:59 JUST SEND THE PROPOSALS TO MY OFFICE. 00:47:01 >> OF COURSE, OF COURSE. CAN YOU DO ME A FAVOR? 00:47:03 PLEASE DON'T TELL ANYONE ABOUT TRINA. 00:47:05 >> I FEEL LIKE I WILL. [ LAUGHTER ] 00:47:08 JUST BEING HONEST. >> THOMAS?! 00:47:12 THOMAS. OH, THOMAS. 00:47:18 LOOK, SO SAD. OH, IT IS A DEAD DOUGHNUT. 00:47:24 [ LAUGHTER ] >> TRINA, THAT IS A MOUSE. 00:47:28 >> HIS LITTLE DOUGHNUT EYES ARE CLOSED. 00:47:31 >> GO HOME, TRINA. >> OKAY. 00:47:36 OH, THOMAS. ALL RIGHT. 00:47:38 I'M GOING TO GO DIP HIM IN A CUP OF COFFEE. 00:47:41 THOMAS! >> OH, THIS IS FOR THIS! 00:48:27 I LOVE CLOTHES! SO MY GIRLFRIEND 00:48:28 SAYS, "SHOP TJ MAXX." "THEIR BUYERS DEAL 00:48:31 DIRECTLY WITH DESIGNERS... THE SAVINGS COME 00:48:33 DIRECTLY TO ME!" BEHOLD A FASHIONISTA... 00:48:35 WHO'S NOW A MAXXINISTA! TJ MAXX. 00:49:49 >>> ONCE AGAIN, SHAKIRA! [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] 00:49:58 FIRST FLOOR ROOM SIXTEEN 00:49:59 SMELLS LIKE DANGER EVEN BETTER 00:50:03 SET YOUR GOALS BLESS OUR SOULS 00:50:07 I'M IN TROUBLE BUT IT FEELS LIKE HEAVEN 00:50:11 YOU WERE LIKE ONE OF THOSE GUYS 00:50:12 THE KIND WITH A WANDERING EYE 00:50:14 BUT I SAID HEY WHAT THE HELL 00:50:17 ONCE IN MY LIFE I'LL TAKE A RIDE 00:50:18 ON THE WILD SIDE YOU WERE SO 00:50:19 FULL OF YOURSELF BUT DAMN WERE YOU CUTE 00:50:23 AS WELL YOU LIKED MY LEGS 00:50:24 I LIKED YOUR MOVES ANYONE COULD TELL 00:50:27 IT'S HARD TO DENY THAT DID IT AGAIN, LOVE 00:50:28 I GOT IT ALL WRONG BUT IT FELT SO RIGHT 00:50:30 I CAN'T BELIEVE IT AND ALL THE MISTAKES 00:50:34 THAT WENT ON FOR TOO LONG WISH THERE WAS A WAY 00:50:37 I COULD DELETE IT EH EH EH EH 00:50:44 AH AH AH AH EH EH EH EH 00:50:51 AH AH AH AH SECOND NIGHT IN A ROW 00:50:55 BACK IN TROUBLE I DON'T GET IT 00:50:59 GOTTA KEEP IT DOWN IT WILL ALL BE GONE 00:51:07 BUT WE IGNORE IT YES, I KNOW 00:51:08 IT'S GETTING BETTER HEY 00:51:09 WHEN IT COMES TO MEN IT'S KNOWN 00:51:11 THAT I AM THE CHOOSING ONE CAUSE I ALWAYS 00:51:12 TRIP AND FALL THE SAME OLD 00:51:14 AND REPEAT AND GO BACK HOW BLIND A GIRL CAN BE 00:51:16 TO MISS YOU HIDE YOUR RING THOUGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING 00:51:19 I'M SO NAIVE AND I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT 00:51:21 DID IT AGAIN, LOVE I GOT IT ALL WRONG 00:51:24 BUT IT FELT SO RIGHT I CAN'T BELIEVE IT 00:51:27 AND ALL THE MISTAKES THAT WENT ON FOR TOO LONG 00:51:31 WISH THERE WAS A WAY I COULD DELETE IT 00:51:36 EH EH EH EH AH AH AH AH 00:51:43 EH EH EH EH AH AH AH AH 00:51:47 IT MAY SEEM TO YOU THAT I AM IN A PLACE 00:51:51 WHERE I'M LOSING THE DIRECTION OF MY LIFE 00:51:54 BUT I'M SURE THAT THIS IS NOTHING BUT A PHASE 00:51:59 RIGHT BACK AT YA HIS EYES SO VILE 00:52:03 DID IT AGAIN, LOVE I GOT IT ALL WRONG 00:52:06 BUT IT FELT SO RIGHT I CAN'T BELIEVE IT 00:52:09 AND ALL THE MISTAKES THAT WENT ON FOR TOO LONG 00:52:13 WISH THERE WAS A WAY I COULD DELETE IT 00:52:17 DID IT AGAIN, LOVE I GOT IT ALL WRONG 00:52:24 EH EH EH EH AH AH AH AH 00:52:31 EH EH EH EH AH AH AH AH 00:52:38 EH EH EH EH AH AH AH AH 00:52:46 EH EH EH EH AH AH AH AH 00:52:56 [ CHEERS AND APPLAUSE ] 00:55:20 >>> "BRAVEHEART," THE TIMELESS TALE OF WILLIAM WALLACE, 00:55:24 SCOTLAND'S GREATEST HERO. AND NOW, THIS CLASSIC TALE TOLD 00:55:28 AGAIN, BUT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WILLIAM WALLACE'S YOUNGER 00:55:32 BROTHER, DAVID. >> ALL RIGHT, GATHER AROUND. 00:55:44 OKAY, NOW I'VE JUST BEEN TALKING WITH THOSE ENGLISH BASTARDS AND 00:55:50 THEY SAY WE'RE OUTNUMBERED. THEY SAY THEY HAVE SUPERIOR 00:55:55 WEAPONS. THEY TOLD ME WE WOULD BE FOOLS 00:55:59 TO FIGHT THEM. SO HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO 00:56:02 DO. WE'RE GOING TO GET THE HELL OUT 00:56:05 OF HERE BEFORE WE GET KILLED. >> "DAVE," THE STORY OF 00:56:11 SCOTLAND'S BIGGEST COWARD, WHEN HISTORY NEEDED A HERO, IT 00:56:15 KNOCKED ON THE WRONG DOOR. >> SO, YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD 00:56:18 SURRENDER? >> I'M SAYING ON THE COUNT OF 00:56:21 THREE, WE SHOULD JUST RUN OFF IN EVERY DIRECTION. 00:56:24 THEY CAN'T CATCH ALL OF US, CAN THEY? 00:56:29 IF THEY DO CATCH YOU, I RECOMMEND PRETENDING YOU'RE 00:56:34 ENGLISH, ALL RIGHT? SO, LET'S PRACTICE. 00:56:37 WE ALL READY? "HELLO, GOVERNOR? 00:56:38 FANCY A CUP OF TEA?" ALL RIGHT, NOW YOU GUYS. 00:56:43 COME ON, LET'S HEAR YOU. >> YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE LIE 00:56:45 DOWN IN OUR BEDS, WON'T WE WISH WE HAD FOUGHT THIS DAY? 00:56:47 >> NO, NO. NO, YOU'LL THINK, "WHAT A COMFY 00:56:48 BED. I'M GLAD I DIDN'T DIE COVERED IN 00:56:51 MUD. THANKS DAVE HEART." 00:56:54 THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL SAY. >> HOW CAN WE SURRENDER? 00:56:58 THE ENGLISH LORDS DEFLOWERED OUR VIRGIN BRIDES ON THEIR WEDDING 00:57:00 NIGHTS. >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, NONE OF 00:57:03 YOUR WIVES WERE VIRGINS ON THEIR WEDDING NIGHTS, AL 00:57:04 RIGHT? [ LAUGHTER ] 00:57:06 I MEAN, THERE WERE SIX GIRLS IN OUR VILLAGE AND, LIKE, 100 GUYS. 00:57:09 SO NO ONE IS A VIRGIN. NOW BACK TO BUSINESS. 00:57:14 WE NEED TO RUN AWAY AND WE NEED TO RUN AWAY FAST. 00:57:16 >> COWARD! >> COWARD? 00:57:19 HUH! COWARD? 00:57:22 I RESENT THAT. OH, MY GOD, WHAT'S THAT? 00:57:25 OH, FALSE ALARM. IT IS JUST A GOAT. 00:57:29 I THOUGHT IT WAS A DRAGON. >> SOME MEN FEAR DEATH. 00:57:34 SOME, DISHONOR. DAVE HEART WAS AFRAID OF THE 00:57:38 DARK AND ALSO LOUD NOISES. A TALE OF COWARDICE IN A TIME OF 00:57:41 COURAGE, A MAN WHO DESPITE A SHAMEFUL ATTEMPT TO FLEE, WAS 00:57:47 STILL CAPTURED AND JAILED. >> THEY ARE GOING TO TORTURE 00:57:49 YOU. >> OH, DON'T SAY TORTURE. 00:57:59 I CAN'T PISS MYSELF ANY MORE THAN I ALREADY HAVE, OKAY? 00:58:02 I MEAN, I'M ALL PISSED OUT. >> I HAVE BROUGHT YOU SOMETHING. 00:58:04 IT WILL NUMB YOUR PAIN. >> OH, YEAH? 00:58:05 OH, YEAH I WANT THAT. GIVE ME A LOT. 00:58:10 I HAVE A LOW TOLERANCE FOR PAIN. >> YOU MUST BE STRONG. 00:58:13 I CAN DO THAT. B 00:58:17 BETTER IDEA. WE SWITCH CLOTHES AND YOU GET 00:58:26 EXECUTED AND I'LL PRETEND TO BE A BEAUTIFUL FRENCH PRINCESS. 00:58:28 HOW IS THAT? >> NO, THAT WILL NOT WORK. 00:58:29 >> OF COURSE IT WILL WORK. I MEAN, WELL, OF COURSE IT WILL 00:58:31 WORK. >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO LIVE WITH 00:58:34 MY HUSBAND AS A WOMAN. >> I WOULD RATHER LIVE AS A 00:58:36 WOMAN THAN DIE AS A MAN. >> DAVE, WORSE THAN 00:58:46 "BRAVEHEART," BUY IT TODAY. AIRBORNE GUY: I FIRST 00:59:48 STARTED TAKING AIRBORNE TO HELP SUPPORT MY IMMUNE 00:59:49 SYSTEM WHEN I TRAVELLED. BUT THEN I REALIZED... 00:59:52 THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER TIMES 00:59:53 MY IMMUNE SYSTEM COULD USE HELP. 00:59:55 SFX: [WAAAAAAHHH!] WIFE: GUESS WHO'S TEETHING? 00:59:58 AIRBORNE GUY: LIKE WHENEVER LIFE GETS A LITTLE OUT OF CONTROL... 00:59:59 DAUGHTER: DADDY, MEET SNAKE. AIRBORNE GUY: OR ANY TIME 01:00:02 LIFE CATCHES UP TO YOU. ANNCR: AIRBORNE HELPS 01:00:05 SUPPORT YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM WITH A SPECIAL BLEND OF... 01:00:07 ZINC, GINGER, ECHINACEA, AND 13 OTHER VITAMINS, 01:00:09 MINERALS AND HERBS... PLUS A BLAST OF VITAMIN C! 01:00:12 WIFE: 'NIGHT DEAR. SFX: [KISSING SOUND] 01:00:14 AIRBORNE GUY: TRY AIRBORNE. IT'S GOOD FOR YOU 01:00:15 WHEN LIFE IS NOT. >>> THANKS TO SHAKIRA, TO DWAYNE 01:00:37 JOHNSON, AND FOR THIS AMAZING CAST, WRITERS, CREW. 01:00:47 JAMES FRANCO.
PETE BUTTIGIEG COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA TOWN HALL REFEED
TVU 27 PETE BUTTIGIEG COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA TOWN HALL REFEED ABC UNI 022120 2020 TVU 27 PETE BUTTIGIEG COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA TOWN HALL ABC UNI (Note: Audio from this event was not great. There was an issue with the mult) (h/t Matt and Jenna for logging!) LAS VEGAS, NV - Pete Buttigieg sat down for a town hall with a few dozen students and staff inside a lecture room at the College of Southern Nevada this afternoon. Among the topics discussed were climate change, education and student loans, health care and gun reform. The moderator brought up the 2017 Las Vegas massacre as she jumped into her question regarding how Buttigieg plans to prevent individuals like that gunman from acquiring guns and ammunition. Buttigieg said several things need to change, including universal background checks and red flag laws and disarming domestic abusers. "Assault weapons of the kind that are used to perpetrate these mass shootings. There's no reason for anything remotely resembling the weapon I trained on to serve in the military." [185144] Buttigieg told the audience that he's ready to take on the NRA and another way he sees change happening is the level of mobilization occurring in this country. "Everyone from students, some of them not old enough yet to vote, all the way through to groups like moms demand action. They're demanding that something happen. And we have to make sure since it seems like the only language that the Senate GOP responds to now is the language of political power, we need to make sure that in that language we communicate to them to resist this directive." [185417] On health care, the mayor was asked if his plan costs more and provides less services since private insurance is kept in place. "So I don't think it does and here's why. What we're proposing is an excellent public plan, one that would be better than what most people with private insurance have today, especially when you have coverage but it turns out there are these high deductibles or the copays are such that it's actually not taking care of your medical needs." [184636] Buttigieg also took the opportunity to take a swipe at Sen. Bernie Sanders's Medicare for All plan. "Some of the other plans, especially Senator Sanders, he refuses to even say what his will cost, and I think we have a responsibility to explain the cost of our plans, especially at a time when, you know, Americans are being told 'well, you don't -- you don't deserve answers,' and I think we do." [184806] And on the topic of foreign policy, Buttigieg was asked how he would address increased tensions with Iran and the mayor said it begins by re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal. "Now, there's no way to go back into it the way it was originally formed. But I do believe we need to prioritize returning to a framework that will meet those goals and critically engaging our allies who have the same interests in having less but not more nuclear proliferation, especially in the middle east, and wanting to move toward a less volatile situation with Iran. I believe that those interests still exist. I believe that while it's much harder now, domestically, for the Iranian regime to do this, there is still a lot of fundamental desire there to ratchet down the economic as well as political pressure." [190503] Buttigieg said he does not picture a world where Iran immediately returns to the negotiating table with the U.S. but rather multilateral approaches. "The reality is it will probably have to begin through our partners. I cannot imagine an easy way to reestablish a bilateral relationship right now. Now, of course, when you need your allies to do something, it would be great not to poke them in the eye all the time." [190537] TVU 27 PETE BUTTIGIEG COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA TOWN HALL ABC UNI 022120 2020 HIGHLIGHTS Medicare for All Who Want It 184606 Q: Um, let's talk about health care. So you framed your position as supporting Medicare for all Americans who want it. Right? In contrast to other Medicare for all plans like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are -- are supporting. So proponents for Medicare for All argue that such a plan is more cost effective. By maintaining private insurance, doesn't your plan inherently cost more and provide less coverage? 184636 BUTG>> So I don't think it does and here's why. What we're proposing is an excellent public plan, one that would be better than what most people with private insurance have today, especially when you have coverage but it turns out there are these high deductibles or the copays are such that it's actually not taking care of your medical needs. We would create a better plan. And if I'm right that it's really the best, everybody's gonna want it. Eventually, it'll actually take us toward Medicare for All because everybody will choose it. 184705 But what if we're wrong. What if, for some people, there are other plans that are better. And I'm thinking, for example, about the culinary workers here in Nevada. They have negotiated for an excellent plan and, by the way, they traded away their wages as part of the negotiation. They could have held out for higher wages and, instead as part of the bargaining process, got this excellent plan. They've even got their own clinics. Who am I to say that their plan is -- is not worth preserving? I would rather set up ours, and if it really is better, they'll pick it. 184739 And if it's not, we're going to be really glad we didn't kick them off it. So the idea is just to put a little bit of humility into our policy. And over time, allow people to make their own choices. It also has the benefit of being paid for, so I can explain how we're going to pay for every cent of most of it by rolling back the Trump tax cut on a corporation, which wasn't needed in the first place and is disproportionately helping those who are already best off. 184806 Some of the other plans, especially Senator Sanders, he refuses to even say what his will cost, and I think we have a responsibility to explain the cost of our plans, especially at a time when, you know, Americans are being told "well, you don't -- you don't deserve answers," and I think we do. But again, if you believe in Medicare for All and actually think it's -- it's an attractive destination, then my plan will get us there if we're right that it's going to be the best answer for everyone. Q: Okay, well, so I did a little bit of research on your health care plan. It says you plan to cap health insurance premiums to 8.5% of an individual's income. So my question pertains to deductibles because most deductibles for plans in the marketplace range anywhere from about 3500 now to about 7500. So on top of that 8.5%, that's a lot of money. How are we gonna get around that? 184905 BUTG>> So, that's why we're not just looking at the premiums. We also need to make sure that deductibles are kept low and what we know is that the purchasing power of a plan as big as the one we're going to create should mean that it's more cost effective than what's out there on the exchanges today. Again, I think we should put it to the tested. But I believe, as a matter of math, that is we can expect. But I will also make sure, without having to wait and see that we have a cap on out of pocket expenses for prescription drugs, that -- if you're very low income -- comes to zero. 184936 But no matter your income, never goes above 250 dollars a month. And the reason it's gotta be monthly, and I'm surprised I'm the only candidate who's talked about this, is that right now we see a lot of folks who will delay a procedure or prescription til they get to a certain month, right, because you're waiting for your cap to kick in. And it makes no sense medically. I mean, we don't experience the economy on a yearly basis. Most of us, our bills come in every month. 184959 The question is: how do we then make sure that the structure matches our economic reality? And I think a monthly cap does that. Gun Violence 10509 Q: Shall we talk about gun violence? BUTG>> Mhm. Q: Okay, Well you know what happened here October 1 2017. I think it had a huge impact on Nevadans. A lot of my students experienced it. I had students relatives that were injured in that. So, what will you do as president to prevent individuals like the one responsible for October 1st, we're not going to say his name, the mass shooting in Las Vegas which left 58 people dead and more than 850 injured, from acquiring guns and ammunitions? 185044 So, several things need to change. The first of course is most Americans agree that we at least need to be doing universal background checks. We're talking about most gun owners, most republicans, most independents, most Democrats agree we should do this. The real question, how can most Americans agree something ought to happen, it doesn't even cost a lot of money, and still can't get through. 185108 And that shows you what's broken in our Democracy. Everything from the filibuster to voter suppression which is often racial in its nature, to the way that districts are being drawn in this country make it harder for the American people to get what we insist is needed. But I believe presidential leadership combined with the activism of students in particular -- and (?) can break that log jam. We need background checks, we need red flag laws. When somebody is identified as a danger, especially by their loved ones. THere needs to be a way to ensure they can be responsibly disarmed. 185144 You need to disarm domestic abusers. Assault weapons of the kind that are used to perpetrate these mass shootings. There's no reason for anything remotely resembling the weapon I trained on to serve in the military. But we have to be sold for profit. Anywhere near and American school or neighborhood or concert venue and again these are common sense positions. What we gotta do is actually drive them through an incentive that refuses to listen to the american people. 185214 And folks will always say, well it wouldn't prevent this shooting or stop that shooter. Maybe that's true but these provisions will save thousands and thousands of lives. And it's true when we look at the horrific mass shootings like the one in October. Also of course we have as many shootings, as many losses as we have a mass shooting every day disproportionately impacting black and brown youth happening in cities including mine. The communities have stepped up to do remarkable work to save lives. 185244 As a matter of fact I wanted to acknowledge that my campaign co-chair, Sharon McBride is here. A counsel members from our city and Gladys Mohammad, one of our community leaders whose here [crowd claps] 185301 And every day that I was mayor, we were arm in arm working to make sure that we were preventing these kind of harms but we were always doing it with a hand tied behind our back because we don't do anything about the actual guns and the communities that are fighting these issues deserve a federal government that will take them seriously and a president who will create some kind of accountability for senators who by refusing to even have a vote on something like background checks. We've passed the House. Then its dying in Mitch McConnell's senate. They're not only defying Democratic leaders, they're defying their own voters when they refuse to do these things. There has to be a political precedent. 185337 Q: So how are you going to battle the senate or NRA?? BUTG>> Well to me, This is the best use of the big airplane that comes with the Oval office. The president uses it mostly for the purpose of traveling between golf courses. I don't even golf so I won't be [crowd laughs] BUTG>> Well, what you will see is me flying directly into the backyard of the members of the senate who by getting in way of these again is defying not only my white house, but their own voters. And have that conversation directly with the voters and what i've seen that also I think will change what possible is the level of mobilization. 1885417 By everyone from students, some of them not old enough yet to vote, all the way through to groups like moms demand action. They're demanding that something happen. And we have to make sure since it seems like the only language that the Senate GOP responds to now is the language of political power, we need to make sure that in that language we communicate to them to resist this directive. 185437 Q: So I had this discussion about guns a lot in my classes obviously. We talk about second amendment and everybody seems very conflicted about it and regardless of their being shootings I'm just going to be honest with you> It's -- people are very conflicted so I'm curious how you're going to go about that, because it seems like Americans themselves really don't know. They know that this is an issue but they don't know what the answer is. 185511 BUTG>> Well, this is where I think leadership makes a difference. We have to shape the conversation. We have to remind Americans of certain things. So, for example, I think a lot of dorm room arguments about this issue. Some folks say what the Constitution says, second amendment says you can't infringe on these rights. Therefore, you can't have any restrictions. And if you just stop for a minute, we realize -- We already know that's not true because, you know, they're constitutionally tested limits on what somebody can acquire. Everybody can have a water gun. Right? Nobody can have a nuclear weapon. 185543 Somewhere we draw a line. Somewhere between a slingshot and a predator drone we have drawn a line that says this far but not no further. So there's no constitutional rule that we can't have alike. Well we're debating, within the framework in the constitution is where that line should go. And most Americans agree that that line should be moving in a tighter direction to save lives. 185604 Q: Do you think that these regulations apply to, you know. They're going to decrease mass shootings? 185611 BUTG>> Absolutely. I mean, yeah. The test can't be will this prevent every tragedy. The test is -- Is this going to save lives and move us toward being a country that stands among other developed countries instead of the only one that tolerates this level of -- of -- of loss to gun violence. So they're talking about everyday shootings in neighborhoods. When we're talking about mass shootings or when we're talking about gun suicide, which is not talked about enough. 185635 People need to realize that suicide attempts are less likely to be fatal in places that take steps to ensure that people who are at risk don't have access to firearms. It's not -- it's not true that somebody who's at risk of suicide cannot be saved. And gun policy is part of that. Iran & Foreign Policy 190403 Q: How do you intend to address this roaring tension with Iran? BUTG>> Well, unfortunately, withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal has set in motion a chain of events which is leading us repeatedly to the brink of war. It's actually happened more than once. Remember the President ordered an airstrike, then changed his mind at the last minute. Then there was the strike on General Soleimani. So we are constantly walking along the brink of an all out confrontation that could get to the point where neither the Iranians regime, nor the White House can even control the flow of events. 190435 All because of the President's decision to terminate a deal that his own administration acknowledged was succeeding in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yes, there are other issues with Iran's sponsorship of proxy groups, including targeting Americans. That is serious, and that requires a lot of policy to deal with. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the Nuclear deal, which was about nuclear issues, was working. 190503 Now, there's no way to go back into it the way it was originally formed. But I do believe we need to prioritize returning to a framework that will meet those goals and critically engaging our allies who have the same interests in having less but not more nuclear proliferation, especially in the middle east, and wanting to move toward a less volatile situation with Iran. I believe that those interests still exist. I believe that while it's much harder now, domestically, for the Iranian regime to do this, there is still a lot of fundamental desire there to ratchet down the economic as well as political pressure. 190537 And we need to have that focus on stabilizing and escalating when it comes to a region that has only become more volatile on the President's watch (?). Q: How are you gonna bring Iran back to the negotiating table? BUTG>> Well, the reality is it will probably have to begin through our partners. I cannot imagine an easy way to reestablish a bilateral relationship right now. Now, of course, when you need your allies to do something, it would be great not to poke them in the eye all the time. 190606 And so, you know, part of the problem now is the relationship we have with the very allies that we need to create that [inaud]. And this is why the top priority, alongside clarifying the criteria for the use the force and raising the bar on that, the top global priority of the next president has to be just restoring the credibility to the United States so that our allies and our adversaries believe us when we say that we're going to move in a certain direction. Q: So more focus on multilateral approaches? BUTG>> Absolutely. Yeah. 190637 And we know that some of the institutions that are set up for these purposes are flawed and need reform, but all the more reason for us to engage with our allies and our partners to try to create the context for those improvements to happen. Q: How should the U.S. respond to the Iraqi paramilitary demands for a withdrawal of U.S. troops? 190659 BUTG>> Well, again, this is a problem that should never have arisen in the first place because of its response to the outrage that happened in Iraq when there was a strike on Iraqi soil without the consultation of Iraq. And this is yet another example of how the president just didn't think about the moves and the countermoves that have to happen next. We don't even know if the situation will be in Iraq by January of 2021. But what we know is that we don't want to have any more of a ground presence than absolutely necessary for protecting U.S. interests. 190729 But we also know that a total departure would be a setback in the struggle against ISIS. And the last thing any of us wants to see is the U.S. being sucked back into this because we allow the problem of ISIS to grow when it's actually within reach of being contained. Q: Yeah. And so, you know what happened out there with ISIS and we would not have been able to essentially suppress them if it wasn't for Iran's assistance. Right. So we're going to need them to come back to work with us on that, right? 190801 BUTG>> There's a lot of kind of enemy is my -- "enemy of my enemy" logic. Right? That is going on in this, again, incredibly complicated place. It's not going to get less complicated, but it could get less dangerous if we have a president determined at every step to secure American interests and do it with -- with, with partners at the table so that we're not there out there alone. Remember, when you hear the president say "America first," what that really means is "America alone." 190825 And the threats of the 21st century, whether we're talking about terrorism, whether we're talking about cyber security, whether we're talking about climate, are not the kinds of threats that anyone can deal with alone. The 21st century will continue to be more interconnected than ever, and that requires a 21st century imagination about how to keep our country safe. The president's imagination, at least judging by his policies, relies on things like a big wall and a moat full of alligators. That's a 17th century security technology, when we need to be thinking to the future. Q: How do you plan on repairing our fractured relationship with many of our military allies, especially NATO and our trading partners, due to President Trump's policies and protectionism? 190915 BUTG>> So I remember serving in Afghanistan in an incredibly multinational environment. They were British and Australian and Canadian and North Macedonian and Turkish soldiers at our side. And we would not have been able to do so much if it weren't for those partnerships. And this is why we need to become a more credible partner. Part of how we do it, I think, is to lead with our values. America's edge has always been that most people around the world, including those whose governments were hostile to us, agreed with the basic things we say we stand for. 190955 Democracy, human rights, freedom. We've always been imperfect in how we deal with -- in how we live up to those, but when we live up to them, we bring the world along with us. That, I think, needs to be at the heart of our alliances. I think it also deserves to play a bigger role in our trade. I actually think the USMCA, the recent deal with Canada and Mexico, took many steps in the right direction, even though it's not perfect, largely because Democrats insisted that more labor and enforceability concerns were reflected in the deal. 191030 We cannot do this alone, and we should have to choose between free trade and trade war. You know, my community is in the middle of the industrial Midwest. It was a car making town. And we experienced all of those moments of economic pain that came with the first round of free trade in the 1990s. People coming along saying, "just go along with this. It'll be -- the pie is going to get so much bigger that you don't have to worry about your slice." 191058 And what happened was half the story came true. The pie got bigger, but not so much when it came to our part (?) And that's why there is a very natural frustration around trade. The answer is not to shut out the rest of the world or go poke our trading partners in the eye. The answer is to make sure that the future of trade is about fair trade that benefits workers, benefits farmers, benefits ranchers, benefits our social and political and environmental goals, and ensuring that those high standards are met in any trade agreement. TRINT [18:39:24] OK. Awesome. Hey, thank you so much for coming. I want to thank a student government. You. She's here. Everybody in government affairs that made this happen. Thank you so much and welcome. [18:39:39] Pete, thank you for coming to see us. And hundreds that are tiny campus to have a Q&A with us. Would you like to say something to her? [18:39:47] Well, I agree so we can really get into the discussion quickly. First of all, thank you so much for hosting us. Here was a thrill to be here. Now, within 24 hours of where you will be, the story without accomplices get underway. And I'm here looking everybody in the eye without asking their support in the name of the vision that guides this campaign, which is the vision of what is going to be like. Visualize a live show like this, the first time the sun comes up over us, our country over the state. [18:40:16] And Donald Trump is no longer the president. I think we are in the middle of the process of proving, not just claiming that we are the best campaign position to bring that day about, but the other reason that I'm always asking people to form that is just talking about where our country will be on that deal. I'm reminded that that's not the day our problems ends. The day or the next president will be regarding issues we had barely thought about. [18:40:45] Just a few years ago, global health security was the cyber security challenges to election security threats. And here at home, dealing with an economy being transformed via things, you did work to the role of technology and data in ways that were barely even born just a few years ago. [18:41:00] We're going to need a president who can lead us forward on those issues and do it at a moment when Washington is more paralyzed and polarized by politics than has been true at any time since I've been alive. And in order to get that done, the good news is we actually have a stronger American majority than you would think that agrees on the big steps our country needs to take. [18:41:21] That agrees and we need to raise wages, empower workers to do something about climate change, work toward racial justice, reform, our immigration system in a way that matches our values, not just our laws, and take meaningful steps to deal with gun violence, among many other issues that need attention. You would know it from looking at the floor of the chamber on Capitol Hill. But right now, the American people are there. [18:41:44] That's why we need a president who can harness and not polarize that American majority. Yes. In order to win. But even more importantly, in order to govern is the hope of achieving that. That propels my campaign. Obviously, a very unlikely candidacy by the lights of what anybody would have said a year ago. But here we are. And I believe we are here because of the American people can see it, too. So I'm looking forward to our conversation. [18:42:06] Thank you. Good to be here. Shall we get some? [18:42:13] Right. [18:42:17] All right. So we are on a college campus. I figured we should probably start with. [18:42:22] Sounding. Start with questions about education. [18:42:29] This is bad journalist at all. That sounds. [18:42:38] OK. Can you hear me? OK. So oh. [18:42:46] OK. So average student loan debt for a public to your college right now, similar to see a son is about eleven thousand. It's about twenty six thousand for a four year program. The cost of in-state tuition for public institutions has increased about 63 percent from 2008 to 2012. [18:43:04] Student loan debt is about up to 1.6 trillion dollars. [18:43:08] So these are things that my students are concerned with. What will you do for current students as well as those who have already taken on massive amounts of student loan debt? And do you attend intend to continue the public service? Student loan forgiveness program. [18:43:23] Great question. So, first of all, this is personal for us. So if you saw a Forbes magazine did a list of candidates by wealth, I I'm officially the least wealthy person. [18:43:34] For better or for worse, and a lot of that is because our net worth is impacted by the student debt that we experience a household. [18:43:41] I'm married to a teacher and it was much more expensive to qualify to become a teacher and get that master's degree for Charleston than any kind of compensation. Have a whole other thing about teacher pay that we might talk about later, but it's why I understand what's at stake here. And as your your question suggests, we need to look at this both on the back end for those who already have that and the front end for those who are in their studies or about to get on the front end. [18:44:06] I have proposed that we create a federal state partnership that would make college heavily supported and actually free for the first 80 percent or so of Americans by income, then a sliding scale on how much help you get. Now, one difference in my plan is if you're in that top income bracket, then I do. I still wish you well in your studies, but I need you to go ahead and pay your own tuition because we need to really make sure that we're applying dollars where they will make the biggest difference. [18:44:31] But if we take that step, then cost will never be a barrier to anybody seeking to go to college now. Then there's the question of folks who are already building up debt as we speak. And you mentioned the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. This is a wonderful policy that, by the way, is zeroed out in the latest budget to come out of the troubled. Now, it's also got some problems as it is. The idea is if you go into a career in public service, you can get your student loans forgiven. [18:44:59] But it's almost impossible to qualify. It takes 10 years before you get any benefit at all. Certain most loan types don't actually don't actually qualify for the support. So we need to make it much more user friendly, much more generous. We need to protect it and we need to make sure that it doesn't just kick in after 10. Also, I believe we should expand the definition of what counts as public service. [18:45:18] So, for example, if you're in a field, really need more people like providing mental health in an underserved area. Then to me, that's public service. Whether you technically work in the public sector or not. And that's an example of the kind of career field we could incentivize with an expanded public service loan forgiveness program. And now we're doing two things at once. We're helping people get rid of their college debt and we're encouraging people to go into fields where we need more people. [18:45:45] Thank you. Thank you. I think this is one of the questions. [18:45:49] Yeah, that a lot of my students have, obviously, because I don't think there's anybody really that pays for school without seeing one. Right. [18:45:57] Because of the cost of it. So it's definitely a different world than when you and I went to school. It's a lot more expensive. Right. So thank you. Let's talk about health care. [18:46:08] So you framed your position as supporting Medicare for all Americans who want it, right? In contrast to other Medicare for all plans like Bernie Sanders and Warren are are supporting proponents for Medicare for all argue that such a plan is more cost effective by maintaining private insurance. Doesn't your plan inherently cost more and provide less coverage? [18:46:35] So I don't think it does. And here's why. What we're proposing is an excellent public plan, one that would be better than what most people with private insurance have today, especially when you have coverage. But it turns out through these high deductibles and co-pays are such that it's actually not taking care of your medical. We would create a better plan. And if I'm right, that is really the best. [18:47:00] Everybody's going to want eventually it'll actually take us toward Medicare for all because everybody will choose. But what if you're wrong? What if for some people there are other plans that are better? And I'm thinking, for example, about the culinary workers here in Nevada. [18:47:14] They have negotiated for an excellent plan. And by the way, they traded away their wages as part of the negotiation. [18:47:21] They could have held out for higher wages and instead as part of the bargaining process, got this excellent plan. They've even got their own planets. Why to say that their plan is is not worth preserving. I would rather set up ours, and if it really is better deal pickets and if it's not, we're gonna be really glad we didn't kick them off. So the idea is just to put a little bit of humility into our policy and over time allow people to make their own choices. [18:47:50] It also has the benefit of being people. So I can explain how we're going to pay for every cent. Most of it by rolling back the Trump tax cut on corporation, which wasn't needed in the first place and is disproportionately helping those who are already best off some of the other plants, especially Senator Sanders. He refuses to even say what is will cause. [18:48:12] And I think we have a responsibility to explain the cost of our plans, especially at a time when Americans are being told, well, you don't you don't deserve answers. I think we do. But again, if you believe in Medicare for all and actually think it's it's an attractive destination, then my plan will get us there. If we're right, then it's gonna be the best answer for. [18:48:33] He will. So I did a lot of research on your health care plan. It says you plan to cap health insurance premiums to 8.5 percent of an individual's income. So my question pertains to deductibles, because most deductibles for plans in the marketplace range anywhere from four top thirty five hundred now to about seventy five hundred. [18:48:54] So on top of that, even point five percent. That's a lot of money. So yeah, how would I get to see. [18:49:04] That's why we're not just looking at the premiums. We also need to make sure that deductibles are kept low. And what we know is that the purchasing power plan, as big as the one we're going to create should mean that it's more cost effective than what's out there on the exchanges today. Yeah, I think we should put it to the test. [18:49:22] But I believe as a matter of math, that is what we can expect. But I also make sure without having to to wait and see that we have a cap on out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs that if you're very low income comes to zero. But no matter your income never goes above $250 a month. And the reason it's gonna be bumpy and I'm surprised I'm the only candidate who's talked about. Is that right now? [18:49:45] See, a lot of folks who will delay a procedure prescription till they get to a certain month, right? Because you're waiting for your captain. And it makes no sense medically, and we don't experience the economy on a yearly basis, both our bills come in every month. The question is how do we make sure that the structure matches our economic reality? And I think a monthly deficit. [18:50:09] Shall we talk about diamonds? [18:50:11] OK. Well, you know what happened here? [18:50:14] October 1st, 2017. I think they had had a huge impact on the matters. A lot of my students experience it. I had a student said relatives that were. Injured in that. [18:50:27] So what will you do as president to prevent individuals like the one responsible were reversed? I can say name the mass shooting in Las Vegas, which left 58 dead and more than eight hundred fifty injured from the apartment. Guns and ammunition. [18:50:45] So some. The first, of course, as most Americans read, that we at least need to be doing it snackers. We're talking about most gun owners, most Republicans, most independents, of course, most Democrats, the Greens. The real question, how can most Americans agree something ought to happen? It doesn't in the course of my mind. And so can I. And that shows you what's broken in our democracy. [18:51:11] Everything from the filibuster to voter suppression, which is often racial in its nature to the way that districts are being drawn in this country, making it harder for the American people to get what the assist is needed. But I believe presidential leadership, combined with the activism of students and moms, can break that logjam. We need background checks. We need red flag. And somebody is identified as a danger, especially by their mom. [18:51:39] There needs to be to ensure that they can be responsibly disarm. We need to disarm domestic abuse, assault weapons of the kind that are used to perpetrate these mass shootings. There's no reason for anything remotely resembling the kind of weaponry I trained. Certain abilities would have to be sold for profit. Maybe a new American school or neighborhood or a concert. And again, these are common sense positions. [18:52:07] We've got to do is actually drive them through it. Senate refuses to listen. And folks will always say, well, it wouldn't prevent this from being or wouldn't have thought that she would. Maybe that's true. But these provisions will save thousands and thousands of lives. And it's true when we look at the horrific mass shootings like wide open and also, of course, we have as many shootings, as many losses as we have in a mass shooting every day, disproportionately impacting black and brown youth happening in cities, including mine that communities have stepped up to do. Remarkable. Say what effect? [18:52:45] A hundred dollars that my campaign co-chair sharing that brought us here. Council member from our city and West Ham with one of our community leaders is here. And every day that I was mayor, we were arm in arm working to ensure that we were preventing these kinds of harm. We're always doing the left hand tied behind our back because we couldn't do anything about the actual guns and the communities that are fighting these issues deserve. [18:53:16] The federal government will take that seriously and the president will create some level of accountability for senators who, by refusing to even have a vote on something like background checks, would pass the House but is dying. And that's a concern. They're not only defying Democratic leaders there, defying their poll vote when they refused. [18:53:35] There has to be a political price. How are you going to battle? [18:53:41] Well, to me that this is the best use of bigger plan to close a deal. The president uses it mostly for the purpose of traveling between golf courses and using only golf. So that won't be a problem. You will see is me flying directly into the backyard of a member of the Senate who by getting in the way of these games, by not only my White House, but their own voters, and have that conversation directly to the voters. [18:54:09] And what I've seen that also, I think will change what's possible is the level of mobilization by everyone from students Sunday night old enough to vote all the way through groups like moms and dads that are demanding that something that we have to make sure since it seems like the only language that the Senate GOP response is the language of political power, we need to make sure that in that language we communicate that they can't resist this. [18:54:36] So I had this discussion about that. A lot of my classes, obviously, and everybody seems very conflicted about it regardless of their being shitty. I'm offended by. [18:54:55] And so I'm curious how you're going to go about that, because it seems like. They know, but they don't know what the answer is. [18:55:10] Well, this is where I think leadership makes a difference to shape the conversation. And we have to remind Americans of certain things. So, for example, I think a lot of dorm room arguments about this issue. Some folks say what the Constitution says segment says it can't infringe on these rights. Therefore, you can't have any restrictions. And if you just stop for a minute, we. We already know that's not true because, you know, they're constitutionally tested limits on what somebody can apply. Everybody can have a water board. Right. Nobody can have a nuclear weapon. [18:55:42] Somewhere we like somebody to be a slingshot and a predator drone. We have drawn a line as this started up no further. So there's no constitutional rule that began. [18:55:53] We'll hear a debate within the framework of the constitution is where that line should go. And most Americans agree that that line should be moving in a tighter direction to save lives. Do you think that these regulations apply to, you know. [18:56:08] They're going to decrease naturally, that's a little every day that the test can't be will this prevent every test? [18:56:16] Is this going to save lives and move us toward being a country that stands among other developed countries is simply only one that tolerates this level of. Oh, that was a dumb one. So they're talking about everyday issues, neighborhoods. When we're talking about mass shooting or when we're talking about gun suicide, which is not talked about enough, people need to realize that suicide attempts are less likely to be fatal in places that take steps to ensure that people who are at risk don't have access to firearms. It's not it's not true that somebody who's at risk of suicide cannot be saved. And gun policy is part of. Here we talk about climate. [18:56:59] This is another really hot topic, obviously, and especially for younger segments of the population because they're seeing what's happening. How would you like to see California wildfires, Australia? You know, it's become. Can I think the younger generation and really worry about their future. Right. So climate change has been described as one of the most significant threats to our economic future. [18:57:29] What steps are you planning to take in order to combat? So there's no question that this is the existential global security threat of our time. And it's no longer theoretical. It is happening in desert droughts in the west. Rising sea levels in Florida, wildfires in California. And I'm looking at my SBN friends. We've we've had flooding in our own community. We've we've had we have a once in a thousand year flood. [18:57:57] And then two years later, we had another. So we can no longer wage this always fear. This is upon us and it's only going to get more. So that's why we need to show that we mean business and do something about it. What does that look like? Well, we got to rejoin the Paris climate war on day one. That is fabless. We also need to make sure that we're setting up an economy that will grow with the direction of sustainability. [18:58:21] That means a carbon price and dividend as we assess a tax on carbon pollution so that we can rebuild it right back up to the American people. It's not about taking money away. It's about making sure that the pricing in our economy actually supports the right kind of economic growth. And by the way, if we get this right, we are creating millions of jobs. I mean, look no further than Nevada, where the solar industry is doing remarkably and employing a lot of people. That's what green jobs look like. They're all around us. And there will be, we estimate, a net 3 million new jobs created through kind of that. [18:58:53] The other thing I would point to is that this needs to be a national mobilization. This has to be something that the entire country feels that is part of. And that includes reaching out to communities that maybe feel like right now, except in climate science would actually be a defeat. Thinking about ranchers, farmers, about industrial workers, we actually very much need them and give a hearty solution that the future of ranching and farming could actually be carbon. If we invest in the technology, the future of labor is absolutely tied up with our ability to deliver these guys changes. [18:59:28] Well, we have to invest and that's what my plan does. Last thing, there needs to be U.S. leadership in global finance. And here I see an opportunity because the world already knows this is a problem and it's a problem that won't be fixed by the U.S. alone because we're only one fifth of the emissions. So at a time like this, with our credibility as a country dangling by what would be a good time for us to be seen leading the world on something that the world already agrees, a problem executive, exactly. How we restore it is to put this at the heart, I believe our domestic policy, but at the heart of our global engagement. [19:00:07] So how do you rank this in terms of your priorities if you get elected? Is there any sense of urgency and tapping, maybe offset the policies of the current administration that, you know, he's talking a lot of policy thinking regulation? That's right. So how urgent is this for you? [19:00:25] This is as essential that the scientists tell us. We have until that on the third stage, a number of major steps now is that scientific deadlines 2030, the real deadline, the political deadline is twenty five if we don't elect a president and release and run science. Now, remember, we hit those targets and that means as president, there will have to be data on activity. And at the stroke of a pen, we can make some important changes, reversing Trump's gutting of clean air and clean water and clean power first. [19:00:59] And as I said, things like we do in Paris, we're also today rolling out a new level of detail, our plan for protecting public lands and public. This is something that this administration clearly says. And when we see the way that that publicly funded land is being carved and tribal interests are not being taken, serious environmental interests are not inserted into their real arms, as are the harms of racial justice that are at stake in the way that communities of color are disproportionately suffering from the kinds of pollution that the Trump administration is making easier. [19:01:41] So all of this needs swift attention and will be on the very top earners in our president. [19:01:47] So is it possible to combat climate change without negatively impacting our economy in the short term? [19:01:54] I think so, but only if we're very intentional about it. It's like proposing a 200 billion dollar fund that is for the process of easing those transitions. Whether we're talking about building up workforce to be ready for those new jobs will be created or whether we're talking about swiftly, instead of subsidizing oil and gas, subsidizing the transition and any shifts that need to happen, whether it is whether it's in employees. [19:02:20] Again, we have to do that with a view toward racial justice, because it is disproportionately black and brown and native communities that have suffered the most from the acceleration of the problem could be playing a big role in developing. The solution to bargaining is on the line for things like training and jobs that we're going to need more and more. By the way, when I talk about green jobs, these aren't all exotic, futuristic, mysterious jobs. [19:02:45] I'm not union carpenters and electrical workers wages and insulators. We're going to need to do the building retrofits. A lot of the economic potential here is a lot closer at hand and we realize we have to shift gears very quickly to capture it. Otherwise, economic cost of businesses will be devastating. [19:03:05] There's a lot of the younger population and younger generation has expressed my feelings that they don't know what they want to have it because they're afraid of the future in terms of the environment. So this is definitely one of the most important topics they talked about before you talk about economy or jobs. Yeah. I'm not for policy. All right. [19:03:34] This is my area. I was to say I'm a little nervous because I screwed up. [19:03:40] So, by the way, these are questions from students. These are all pretty much passionate for students. So I added some stuff to some of that. And so, yeah, this is there's that. So tensions between the U.S. and Iran have grown dramatically since the U.S. led the Iran nuclear deal. And because of the recent U.S. assassination as General Suleimani. [19:04:02] How do you intend to address this growing tension? Well, unfortunately, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal has set in motion a chain of events which is leading us repeatedly to the brink of war. It's actually happened more than once. Remember, the president ordered an airstrike and then changed his mind at the last minute. [19:04:21] Then there was the strike. Now, General Suleimani. So we are constantly walking along the brink of an all out confrontation. If you get to the point where neither the Iranian regime nor the White House can control the flow, that's all because of the president's decision to terminate the deal that his own administration acknowledged was succeeding in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yes, there are other issues with Iran's sponsorship of proxy groups, including targeting Americans. [19:04:52] That is serious and that requires a lot of policy to deal with. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the nuclear deal, which is about nuclear issues, does work. Now, there's no way to go back and do it the way it was originally before. But I do believe we need to prioritize return blueprint that will meet those goals and critically engage our analysts who have the same interest in having less than more nuclear proliferation, especially the Middle East, and wanting to move toward a less volatile situation with Iran. [19:05:23] I believe that those interests still exist. I believe that while it's much harder now domestically for the Iranian regime to do this, there is still a lot of fundamental desire to ratchet down the economic as well as political pressure. And we need to have that focus on stabilizing. And yes, when it comes to a region that has only become more volatile on the president's watch. [19:05:47] How are you going to bring Iran back to the negotiating? Well, the values it will probably have to get through our partners. I cannot imagine an easy way to reestablish a bilateral relationship right now. Of course, when you need your allies, do something. It would be great not spoken in the aisle. So, you know, part of the problem now is the. Relationship we have with the very allies we need to great. [19:06:12] And this is why the top priority alongside clarifying the criteria for use force, raise the bar on the top global priority, the president has to be just restoring the credibility of the United States so that our allies and our adversaries can believe us when we say that we're going to move in a certain direction. [19:06:33] So Mark on the phone, we'll find out soon. And we know that some institutions that are set up for these purposes are quite reasonable. But all the more reason for us to engage with our allies and our partners to try to create the context for this purpose. [19:06:51] How should the U.S. respond to the Iraqi paramilitary? [19:06:56] For a withdrawal of U.S. troops? Well, again, this is a problem that should never have arisen in the first place because its response to the outrage that happened in Iraq when there was a strike on Iraqi soil without the consultation of Iraq. And this is yet another example of how the president just didn't think about the moves in the coming so that we don't even know if the situation will be in Iraq by January 20, 21. [19:07:21] But what we know is that we don't want to have any more of a ground presence than absolutely necessary for protecting U.S. interests. Well, we also know that a total departure would be a setback in the struggle against ISIS. And the last thing any of us wants to see is the U.S. being sucked back into this because we allow the problem of ISIS to grow. It's actually within reach of the. [19:07:44] Yeah. And so, you know what happened out there with ISIS and we would not have been able to essentially suppress them if it wasn't for Iran. Right. So we're going to need them to come back to work with us on that. [19:08:00] Right. There's a lot of enemy is my enemy of my enemy logic. Right. That is going on in this, again, incredibly complicated place. It's not going to get less complicated, but it could get less dangerous if we have a president determined at every step to secure American interests and do it with with with partners at the table so that we're not there out there, Wolf. Remember, we heard the president say America first really needs is America. [19:08:25] And the threats of the 21st century, whether we're talking about terrorism, we're talking about cyber security, talking about climate, are not the kinds of threats that anyone can deal with along the 21st century will continue to be more interconnected than ever. And that requires a 21st century imagination about how to keep our country safe. The president's imagination, at least judging by his policies, relies on things like a big wall on the road full of alligators. [19:08:57] That's a 17th century security technology where we need to be thinking to the future. [19:09:04] How do you plan on repairing our fractured relationship with many of our military allies, especially now and our trading partners, due to President Kennedy's policies and protectionism? [19:09:15] So I remember serving in Afghanistan and an incredibly multinational involved. They were British and Australian and Canadian NFL and Turkish soldiers at our side. And we would not have been able to do so much if it weren't for those partnerships. And this is why we need to become a more credible partner. Partner. How we do it, I think, is the lead with our values. America's edge has always been that most people around the world, including those whose governments were hostile to us, agreed with the basic things we say. [19:09:55] We stand for democracy, human rights, freedom. We've always been imperfect in how we deal with how we live up to those, but plenty with them. We bring the world along with us. That, I think, needs to be at the heart of our alliances. And he also deserves to play a bigger role in our trade. She thinks the U.S. FCA, the recent deal with Canada and Mexico, took many steps in the right direction, even though it's not perfect. [19:10:19] Largely because Democrats insisted that more labor and enforceability concerns were reflected in the deal. We cannot do this alone, and we should have to choose between free trade and trade. [19:10:35] You know, my community is in the middle of the industrial Midwest. [19:10:38] It was a car maker. And we experience all of those moments of economic pain that came with the first round of free trade in the 1990s. People coming along saying, just go along with this. It'll be that the pie is going to get so much bigger. You don't have to worry about your slice. What happened was half the story. Enter the pie that bigger, but not so much on the radar. And that's why there is a very natural frustration around. [19:11:09] The answer is not to shut out the rest of the world or go poke our trading partners in the eye. The answer is to make sure that the future of trade is about fair trade that benefits workers. That's as far as its ranchers benefits. Our social and political and environmental goals and ensuring that those high standards are met in any trade agreement. [19:11:33] OK. And what compromises are you willing to make to appeal to voters who voted for Trump in the last election? That may be wavering on their support for him now. [19:11:44] So one of the things I've seen it everywhere I go is that we have been able to reach out not just to Democrats, not just to independents, but I like to call them future. Former Republicans are very, very welcome to join us in this effort. And I find that the outreach is not so much about pretending to be more conservative than we are. It's about recognizing a lot of folks don't just vote party or don't just vote ideology. And even if you are a traditional Republican for reasons you really believe in, conservative ideas don't seem that surprising. [19:12:19] If you're a conservative because you believe in, you know, fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, it's got a trillion dollar deficit. If you are a conservative because you believe in norms and institutions, this president is smashing them. Right. If you're a conservative because you believe in the importance of family. I want to get started on this recipe. So what we need to do is reach out, not necessarily by trying to split the middle on every idea from an ideological cause. I don't think it's about ideology. [19:12:55] IT's about policy, but it's also about how we're going to move this country forward and just setting a different tone. I don't think you have to be a die hard Democrat. I hope one day to have a president because. Look and feel your blood pressure go down instead of up through the roof. [19:13:10] That's part of what I'm offering alongside policy ideas that there's actually a strong American majority supporting, as we've been discussing from talking of gun violence to doing something about climate change to raise wages, they're holding big corporations. [19:13:25] How do you plan to appeal to voters that feel frustrated with what they perceive as a two party system that doesn't represent it, doesn't have their best interests in mind? So this is something we talked about a lot in classes that people don't know. They're like, I don't feel like the Republican Party has my interests in mind. I don't think that the Democratic Party does. How are going to do that? We know that generally speaking, when we talk about these third parties, we generally don't have a chance in this winner-take-all type of system. Yeah. [19:13:56] You know, I'm a Democrat because I believe in the values that guide my party. But I've been frustrated with my party and I think anybody runs for office has reasons to be frustrated with the party. Either way, I think the answer is to make sure that we are as close to the concerns of individuals as possible and we're putting together real solutions and that we focus not so much on candidates as on voters. [19:14:26] We every election is actually just about one, but it's a voter asking a question how's my life going to be different if you get elected president instead of me? And if we can answer that question, I think we have better answers on that question. We're the ones trying to get your race are the ones ready for paid family leave. [19:14:43] Those are going to do something about guns on them, that that's how we can win and also how we can just keep the noise machine that this president, who has a gift for changing the subject and the subject of every election should not be him or me. Could you do that? [19:15:02] How do you apply the skills that you've gained as a bear from a small city in Indiana to the national level? [19:15:09] There is always. There's no job like president. There's also no job with me. And when you're there, you are not debating positions in a committee room. You're not just responsible for trying to vote the right way on. You've got to. You will never hear about a city shutting down its government because they couldn't agree to pass something. I mean, the city government delivers water and he wanted to live. So we just figure it out when it comes to budget time. We don't get to France usna currency. So you just figure out a way to make it add up. And there's a tough event. [19:15:48] Take Higgins's kesselman. Could you share that? We have big, tough decisions to make it all. [19:15:54] But we do. And I think we need more of that attitude. So when people say what makes you think they are only going to watch you, not even a mayor of one of the great global cities in the United States? I would say that's that's the point. We need a different entity going to Washington. You can't expect to defeat this president or to govern this country by falling back on the familiar going to the same thing. [19:16:18] And by the way, every time my party has won the White House in the last half century, it's been with a candidate who either didn't have an office in Washington or hadn't been there for very long. And so I think that different kind of perspective and being from a community that knows what it is to feel passed up by Washington and Wall Street life, it is a big part of how we can get things to move in the right direction before it's too late. [19:16:42] We are I have I have to this last question is what I see that we are on the side. So you have mentioned you are a man of faith. Well, your religious beliefs have an influence on your decision making. [19:16:55] As president, would you believe in a separation of religion and faith? So, first of all, I will make decisions that are for people of every religion and of no religion, because the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of this country. And because I know what it's like to be required to live under somebody else's interpretation of their religion, I very much know what's at stake. My marriage depends on. I also believe in being transparent about how I feel. [19:17:27] And that's why I've talked about faith on the campaign trail. It's not that I would ever impose my understanding of my faith on anybody else. It's that I want people understand where I take my cue in terms of how I approach issues with a lot of worldly. For example, the fact that we need to talk about and deal with poverty a lot more in this country. You know, poverty is at the heart of Sydney that the Christian tradition on and so does the idea that the risk to make ourselves useful to those who are oppressed and those who are cast out and those who are wrong. [19:18:03] And that does have implications for the priorities that that. I believe I'm responsible for fault. But I will only ever make a decision or advance an idea that can be defended on equal terms to people of any religion and no religion, because that's how our democracy is set up. But I will also not hesitate to point out the hypocrisy of a president in a party who try to cloak themselves in religion. I mean, this guy didn't. [19:18:35] There's something really shocking about the idea of an administration that seems to always be out to afflict the afflicted and comfort the company. And it's one of the reasons I think it's so important, just as a candidate to go out there and insist that God does not belong to political party. [19:18:56] Thank you. I think we are out of time. Thank you so much.
PETE BUTTIGIEG COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA TOWN HALL
TVU 27 PETE BUTTIGIEG COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA TOWN HALL ABC UNI 022120 2020 (Refed later due to audio issue) TVU 27 PETE BUTTIGIEG COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA TOWN HALL ABC UNI (Note: Audio from this event was not great. There was an issue with the mult) (h/t Matt and Jenna for logging!) LAS VEGAS, NV - Pete Buttigieg sat down for a town hall with a few dozen students and staff inside a lecture room at the College of Southern Nevada this afternoon. Among the topics discussed were climate change, education and student loans, health care and gun reform. The moderator brought up the 2017 Las Vegas massacre as she jumped into her question regarding how Buttigieg plans to prevent individuals like that gunman from acquiring guns and ammunition. Buttigieg said several things need to change, including universal background checks and red flag laws and disarming domestic abusers. "Assault weapons of the kind that are used to perpetrate these mass shootings. There's no reason for anything remotely resembling the weapon I trained on to serve in the military." [185144] Buttigieg told the audience that he's ready to take on the NRA and another way he sees change happening is the level of mobilization occurring in this country. "Everyone from students, some of them not old enough yet to vote, all the way through to groups like moms demand action. They're demanding that something happen. And we have to make sure since it seems like the only language that the Senate GOP responds to now is the language of political power, we need to make sure that in that language we communicate to them to resist this directive." [185417] On health care, the mayor was asked if his plan costs more and provides less services since private insurance is kept in place. "So I don't think it does and here's why. What we're proposing is an excellent public plan, one that would be better than what most people with private insurance have today, especially when you have coverage but it turns out there are these high deductibles or the copays are such that it's actually not taking care of your medical needs." [184636] Buttigieg also took the opportunity to take a swipe at Sen. Bernie Sanders's Medicare for All plan. "Some of the other plans, especially Senator Sanders, he refuses to even say what his will cost, and I think we have a responsibility to explain the cost of our plans, especially at a time when, you know, Americans are being told 'well, you don't -- you don't deserve answers,' and I think we do." [184806] And on the topic of foreign policy, Buttigieg was asked how he would address increased tensions with Iran and the mayor said it begins by re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal. "Now, there's no way to go back into it the way it was originally formed. But I do believe we need to prioritize returning to a framework that will meet those goals and critically engaging our allies who have the same interests in having less but not more nuclear proliferation, especially in the middle east, and wanting to move toward a less volatile situation with Iran. I believe that those interests still exist. I believe that while it's much harder now, domestically, for the Iranian regime to do this, there is still a lot of fundamental desire there to ratchet down the economic as well as political pressure." [190503] Buttigieg said he does not picture a world where Iran immediately returns to the negotiating table with the U.S. but rather multilateral approaches. "The reality is it will probably have to begin through our partners. I cannot imagine an easy way to reestablish a bilateral relationship right now. Now, of course, when you need your allies to do something, it would be great not to poke them in the eye all the time." [190537] TVU 27 PETE BUTTIGIEG COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA TOWN HALL ABC UNI 022120 2020 HIGHLIGHTS Medicare for All Who Want It 184606 Q: Um, let's talk about health care. So you framed your position as supporting Medicare for all Americans who want it. Right? In contrast to other Medicare for all plans like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, are -- are supporting. So proponents for Medicare for All argue that such a plan is more cost effective. By maintaining private insurance, doesn't your plan inherently cost more and provide less coverage? 184636 BUTG>> So I don't think it does and here's why. What we're proposing is an excellent public plan, one that would be better than what most people with private insurance have today, especially when you have coverage but it turns out there are these high deductibles or the copays are such that it's actually not taking care of your medical needs. We would create a better plan. And if I'm right that it's really the best, everybody's gonna want it. Eventually, it'll actually take us toward Medicare for All because everybody will choose it. 184705 But what if we're wrong. What if, for some people, there are other plans that are better. And I'm thinking, for example, about the culinary workers here in Nevada. They have negotiated for an excellent plan and, by the way, they traded away their wages as part of the negotiation. They could have held out for higher wages and, instead as part of the bargaining process, got this excellent plan. They've even got their own clinics. Who am I to say that their plan is -- is not worth preserving? I would rather set up ours, and if it really is better, they'll pick it. 184739 And if it's not, we're going to be really glad we didn't kick them off it. So the idea is just to put a little bit of humility into our policy. And over time, allow people to make their own choices. It also has the benefit of being paid for, so I can explain how we're going to pay for every cent of most of it by rolling back the Trump tax cut on a corporation, which wasn't needed in the first place and is disproportionately helping those who are already best off. 184806 Some of the other plans, especially Senator Sanders, he refuses to even say what his will cost, and I think we have a responsibility to explain the cost of our plans, especially at a time when, you know, Americans are being told "well, you don't -- you don't deserve answers," and I think we do. But again, if you believe in Medicare for All and actually think it's -- it's an attractive destination, then my plan will get us there if we're right that it's going to be the best answer for everyone. Q: Okay, well, so I did a little bit of research on your health care plan. It says you plan to cap health insurance premiums to 8.5% of an individual's income. So my question pertains to deductibles because most deductibles for plans in the marketplace range anywhere from about 3500 now to about 7500. So on top of that 8.5%, that's a lot of money. How are we gonna get around that? 184905 BUTG>> So, that's why we're not just looking at the premiums. We also need to make sure that deductibles are kept low and what we know is that the purchasing power of a plan as big as the one we're going to create should mean that it's more cost effective than what's out there on the exchanges today. Again, I think we should put it to the tested. But I believe, as a matter of math, that is we can expect. But I will also make sure, without having to wait and see that we have a cap on out of pocket expenses for prescription drugs, that -- if you're very low income -- comes to zero. 184936 But no matter your income, never goes above 250 dollars a month. And the reason it's gotta be monthly, and I'm surprised I'm the only candidate who's talked about this, is that right now we see a lot of folks who will delay a procedure or prescription til they get to a certain month, right, because you're waiting for your cap to kick in. And it makes no sense medically. I mean, we don't experience the economy on a yearly basis. Most of us, our bills come in every month. 184959 The question is: how do we then make sure that the structure matches our economic reality? And I think a monthly cap does that. Gun Violence 10509 Q: Shall we talk about gun violence? BUTG>> Mhm. Q: Okay, Well you know what happened here October 1 2017. I think it had a huge impact on Nevadans. A lot of my students experienced it. I had students relatives that were injured in that. So, what will you do as president to prevent individuals like the one responsible for October 1st, we're not going to say his name, the mass shooting in Las Vegas which left 58 people dead and more than 850 injured, from acquiring guns and ammunitions? 185044 So, several things need to change. The first of course is most Americans agree that we at least need to be doing universal background checks. We're talking about most gun owners, most republicans, most independents, most Democrats agree we should do this. The real question, how can most Americans agree something ought to happen, it doesn't even cost a lot of money, and still can't get through. 185108 And that shows you what's broken in our Democracy. Everything from the filibuster to voter suppression which is often racial in its nature, to the way that districts are being drawn in this country make it harder for the American people to get what we insist is needed. But I believe presidential leadership combined with the activism of students in particular -- and (?) can break that log jam. We need background checks, we need red flag laws. When somebody is identified as a danger, especially by their loved ones. THere needs to be a way to ensure they can be responsibly disarmed. 185144 You need to disarm domestic abusers. Assault weapons of the kind that are used to perpetrate these mass shootings. There's no reason for anything remotely resembling the weapon I trained on to serve in the military. But we have to be sold for profit. Anywhere near and American school or neighborhood or concert venue and again these are common sense positions. What we gotta do is actually drive them through an incentive that refuses to listen to the american people. 185214 And folks will always say, well it wouldn't prevent this shooting or stop that shooter. Maybe that's true but these provisions will save thousands and thousands of lives. And it's true when we look at the horrific mass shootings like the one in October. Also of course we have as many shootings, as many losses as we have a mass shooting every day disproportionately impacting black and brown youth happening in cities including mine. The communities have stepped up to do remarkable work to save lives. 185244 As a matter of fact I wanted to acknowledge that my campaign co-chair, Sharon McBride is here. A counsel members from our city and Gladys Mohammad, one of our community leaders whose here [crowd claps] 185301 And every day that I was mayor, we were arm in arm working to make sure that we were preventing these kind of harms but we were always doing it with a hand tied behind our back because we don't do anything about the actual guns and the communities that are fighting these issues deserve a federal government that will take them seriously and a president who will create some kind of accountability for senators who by refusing to even have a vote on something like background checks. We've passed the House. Then its dying in Mitch McConnell's senate. They're not only defying Democratic leaders, they're defying their own voters when they refuse to do these things. There has to be a political precedent. 185337 Q: So how are you going to battle the senate or NRA?? BUTG>> Well to me, This is the best use of the big airplane that comes with the Oval office. The president uses it mostly for the purpose of traveling between golf courses. I don't even golf so I won't be [crowd laughs] BUTG>> Well, what you will see is me flying directly into the backyard of the members of the senate who by getting in way of these again is defying not only my white house, but their own voters. And have that conversation directly with the voters and what i've seen that also I think will change what possible is the level of mobilization. 1885417 By everyone from students, some of them not old enough yet to vote, all the way through to groups like moms demand action. They're demanding that something happen. And we have to make sure since it seems like the only language that the Senate GOP responds to now is the language of political power, we need to make sure that in that language we communicate to them to resist this directive. 185437 Q: So I had this discussion about guns a lot in my classes obviously. We talk about second amendment and everybody seems very conflicted about it and regardless of their being shootings I'm just going to be honest with you> It's -- people are very conflicted so I'm curious how you're going to go about that, because it seems like Americans themselves really don't know. They know that this is an issue but they don't know what the answer is. 185511 BUTG>> Well, this is where I think leadership makes a difference. We have to shape the conversation. We have to remind Americans of certain things. So, for example, I think a lot of dorm room arguments about this issue. Some folks say what the Constitution says, second amendment says you can't infringe on these rights. Therefore, you can't have any restrictions. And if you just stop for a minute, we realize -- We already know that's not true because, you know, they're constitutionally tested limits on what somebody can acquire. Everybody can have a water gun. Right? Nobody can have a nuclear weapon. 185543 Somewhere we draw a line. Somewhere between a slingshot and a predator drone we have drawn a line that says this far but not no further. So there's no constitutional rule that we can't have alike. Well we're debating, within the framework in the constitution is where that line should go. And most Americans agree that that line should be moving in a tighter direction to save lives. 185604 Q: Do you think that these regulations apply to, you know. They're going to decrease mass shootings? 185611 BUTG>> Absolutely. I mean, yeah. The test can't be will this prevent every tragedy. The test is -- Is this going to save lives and move us toward being a country that stands among other developed countries instead of the only one that tolerates this level of -- of -- of loss to gun violence. So they're talking about everyday shootings in neighborhoods. When we're talking about mass shootings or when we're talking about gun suicide, which is not talked about enough. 185635 People need to realize that suicide attempts are less likely to be fatal in places that take steps to ensure that people who are at risk don't have access to firearms. It's not -- it's not true that somebody who's at risk of suicide cannot be saved. And gun policy is part of that. Iran & Foreign Policy 190403 Q: How do you intend to address this roaring tension with Iran? BUTG>> Well, unfortunately, withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal has set in motion a chain of events which is leading us repeatedly to the brink of war. It's actually happened more than once. Remember the President ordered an airstrike, then changed his mind at the last minute. Then there was the strike on General Soleimani. So we are constantly walking along the brink of an all out confrontation that could get to the point where neither the Iranians regime, nor the White House can even control the flow of events. 190435 All because of the President's decision to terminate a deal that his own administration acknowledged was succeeding in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yes, there are other issues with Iran's sponsorship of proxy groups, including targeting Americans. That is serious, and that requires a lot of policy to deal with. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the Nuclear deal, which was about nuclear issues, was working. 190503 Now, there's no way to go back into it the way it was originally formed. But I do believe we need to prioritize returning to a framework that will meet those goals and critically engaging our allies who have the same interests in having less but not more nuclear proliferation, especially in the middle east, and wanting to move toward a less volatile situation with Iran. I believe that those interests still exist. I believe that while it's much harder now, domestically, for the Iranian regime to do this, there is still a lot of fundamental desire there to ratchet down the economic as well as political pressure. 190537 And we need to have that focus on stabilizing and escalating when it comes to a region that has only become more volatile on the President's watch (?). Q: How are you gonna bring Iran back to the negotiating table? BUTG>> Well, the reality is it will probably have to begin through our partners. I cannot imagine an easy way to reestablish a bilateral relationship right now. Now, of course, when you need your allies to do something, it would be great not to poke them in the eye all the time. 190606 And so, you know, part of the problem now is the relationship we have with the very allies that we need to create that [inaud]. And this is why the top priority, alongside clarifying the criteria for the use the force and raising the bar on that, the top global priority of the next president has to be just restoring the credibility to the United States so that our allies and our adversaries believe us when we say that we're going to move in a certain direction. Q: So more focus on multilateral approaches? BUTG>> Absolutely. Yeah. 190637 And we know that some of the institutions that are set up for these purposes are flawed and need reform, but all the more reason for us to engage with our allies and our partners to try to create the context for those improvements to happen. Q: How should the U.S. respond to the Iraqi paramilitary demands for a withdrawal of U.S. troops? 190659 BUTG>> Well, again, this is a problem that should never have arisen in the first place because of its response to the outrage that happened in Iraq when there was a strike on Iraqi soil without the consultation of Iraq. And this is yet another example of how the president just didn't think about the moves and the countermoves that have to happen next. We don't even know if the situation will be in Iraq by January of 2021. But what we know is that we don't want to have any more of a ground presence than absolutely necessary for protecting U.S. interests. 190729 But we also know that a total departure would be a setback in the struggle against ISIS. And the last thing any of us wants to see is the U.S. being sucked back into this because we allow the problem of ISIS to grow when it's actually within reach of being contained. Q: Yeah. And so, you know what happened out there with ISIS and we would not have been able to essentially suppress them if it wasn't for Iran's assistance. Right. So we're going to need them to come back to work with us on that, right? 190801 BUTG>> There's a lot of kind of enemy is my -- "enemy of my enemy" logic. Right? That is going on in this, again, incredibly complicated place. It's not going to get less complicated, but it could get less dangerous if we have a president determined at every step to secure American interests and do it with -- with, with partners at the table so that we're not there out there alone. Remember, when you hear the president say "America first," what that really means is "America alone." 190825 And the threats of the 21st century, whether we're talking about terrorism, whether we're talking about cyber security, whether we're talking about climate, are not the kinds of threats that anyone can deal with alone. The 21st century will continue to be more interconnected than ever, and that requires a 21st century imagination about how to keep our country safe. The president's imagination, at least judging by his policies, relies on things like a big wall and a moat full of alligators. That's a 17th century security technology, when we need to be thinking to the future. Q: How do you plan on repairing our fractured relationship with many of our military allies, especially NATO and our trading partners, due to President Trump's policies and protectionism? 190915 BUTG>> So I remember serving in Afghanistan in an incredibly multinational environment. They were British and Australian and Canadian and North Macedonian and Turkish soldiers at our side. And we would not have been able to do so much if it weren't for those partnerships. And this is why we need to become a more credible partner. Part of how we do it, I think, is to lead with our values. America's edge has always been that most people around the world, including those whose governments were hostile to us, agreed with the basic things we say we stand for. 190955 Democracy, human rights, freedom. We've always been imperfect in how we deal with -- in how we live up to those, but when we live up to them, we bring the world along with us. That, I think, needs to be at the heart of our alliances. I think it also deserves to play a bigger role in our trade. I actually think the USMCA, the recent deal with Canada and Mexico, took many steps in the right direction, even though it's not perfect, largely because Democrats insisted that more labor and enforceability concerns were reflected in the deal. 191030 We cannot do this alone, and we should have to choose between free trade and trade war. You know, my community is in the middle of the industrial Midwest. It was a car making town. And we experienced all of those moments of economic pain that came with the first round of free trade in the 1990s. People coming along saying, "just go along with this. It'll be -- the pie is going to get so much bigger that you don't have to worry about your slice." 191058 And what happened was half the story came true. The pie got bigger, but not so much when it came to our part (?) And that's why there is a very natural frustration around trade. The answer is not to shut out the rest of the world or go poke our trading partners in the eye. The answer is to make sure that the future of trade is about fair trade that benefits workers, benefits farmers, benefits ranchers, benefits our social and political and environmental goals, and ensuring that those high standards are met in any trade agreement. TRINT [18:39:24] OK. Awesome. Hey, thank you so much for coming. I want to thank a student government. You. She's here. Everybody in government affairs that made this happen. Thank you so much and welcome. [18:39:39] Pete, thank you for coming to see us. And hundreds that are tiny campus to have a Q&A with us. Would you like to say something to her? [18:39:47] Well, I agree so we can really get into the discussion quickly. First of all, thank you so much for hosting us. Here was a thrill to be here. Now, within 24 hours of where you will be, the story without accomplices get underway. And I'm here looking everybody in the eye without asking their support in the name of the vision that guides this campaign, which is the vision of what is going to be like. Visualize a live show like this, the first time the sun comes up over us, our country over the state. [18:40:16] And Donald Trump is no longer the president. I think we are in the middle of the process of proving, not just claiming that we are the best campaign position to bring that day about, but the other reason that I'm always asking people to form that is just talking about where our country will be on that deal. I'm reminded that that's not the day our problems ends. The day or the next president will be regarding issues we had barely thought about. [18:40:45] Just a few years ago, global health security was the cyber security challenges to election security threats. And here at home, dealing with an economy being transformed via things, you did work to the role of technology and data in ways that were barely even born just a few years ago. [18:41:00] We're going to need a president who can lead us forward on those issues and do it at a moment when Washington is more paralyzed and polarized by politics than has been true at any time since I've been alive. And in order to get that done, the good news is we actually have a stronger American majority than you would think that agrees on the big steps our country needs to take. [18:41:21] That agrees and we need to raise wages, empower workers to do something about climate change, work toward racial justice, reform, our immigration system in a way that matches our values, not just our laws, and take meaningful steps to deal with gun violence, among many other issues that need attention. You would know it from looking at the floor of the chamber on Capitol Hill. But right now, the American people are there. [18:41:44] That's why we need a president who can harness and not polarize that American majority. Yes. In order to win. But even more importantly, in order to govern is the hope of achieving that. That propels my campaign. Obviously, a very unlikely candidacy by the lights of what anybody would have said a year ago. But here we are. And I believe we are here because of the American people can see it, too. So I'm looking forward to our conversation. [18:42:06] Thank you. Good to be here. Shall we get some? [18:42:13] Right. [18:42:17] All right. So we are on a college campus. I figured we should probably start with. [18:42:22] Sounding. Start with questions about education. [18:42:29] This is bad journalist at all. That sounds. [18:42:38] OK. Can you hear me? OK. So oh. [18:42:46] OK. So average student loan debt for a public to your college right now, similar to see a son is about eleven thousand. It's about twenty six thousand for a four year program. The cost of in-state tuition for public institutions has increased about 63 percent from 2008 to 2012. [18:43:04] Student loan debt is about up to 1.6 trillion dollars. [18:43:08] So these are things that my students are concerned with. What will you do for current students as well as those who have already taken on massive amounts of student loan debt? And do you attend intend to continue the public service? Student loan forgiveness program. [18:43:23] Great question. So, first of all, this is personal for us. So if you saw a Forbes magazine did a list of candidates by wealth, I I'm officially the least wealthy person. [18:43:34] For better or for worse, and a lot of that is because our net worth is impacted by the student debt that we experience a household. [18:43:41] I'm married to a teacher and it was much more expensive to qualify to become a teacher and get that master's degree for Charleston than any kind of compensation. Have a whole other thing about teacher pay that we might talk about later, but it's why I understand what's at stake here. And as your your question suggests, we need to look at this both on the back end for those who already have that and the front end for those who are in their studies or about to get on the front end. [18:44:06] I have proposed that we create a federal state partnership that would make college heavily supported and actually free for the first 80 percent or so of Americans by income, then a sliding scale on how much help you get. Now, one difference in my plan is if you're in that top income bracket, then I do. I still wish you well in your studies, but I need you to go ahead and pay your own tuition because we need to really make sure that we're applying dollars where they will make the biggest difference. [18:44:31] But if we take that step, then cost will never be a barrier to anybody seeking to go to college now. Then there's the question of folks who are already building up debt as we speak. And you mentioned the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. This is a wonderful policy that, by the way, is zeroed out in the latest budget to come out of the troubled. Now, it's also got some problems as it is. The idea is if you go into a career in public service, you can get your student loans forgiven. [18:44:59] But it's almost impossible to qualify. It takes 10 years before you get any benefit at all. Certain most loan types don't actually don't actually qualify for the support. So we need to make it much more user friendly, much more generous. We need to protect it and we need to make sure that it doesn't just kick in after 10. Also, I believe we should expand the definition of what counts as public service. [18:45:18] So, for example, if you're in a field, really need more people like providing mental health in an underserved area. Then to me, that's public service. Whether you technically work in the public sector or not. And that's an example of the kind of career field we could incentivize with an expanded public service loan forgiveness program. And now we're doing two things at once. We're helping people get rid of their college debt and we're encouraging people to go into fields where we need more people. [18:45:45] Thank you. Thank you. I think this is one of the questions. [18:45:49] Yeah, that a lot of my students have, obviously, because I don't think there's anybody really that pays for school without seeing one. Right. [18:45:57] Because of the cost of it. So it's definitely a different world than when you and I went to school. It's a lot more expensive. Right. So thank you. Let's talk about health care. [18:46:08] So you framed your position as supporting Medicare for all Americans who want it, right? In contrast to other Medicare for all plans like Bernie Sanders and Warren are are supporting proponents for Medicare for all argue that such a plan is more cost effective by maintaining private insurance. Doesn't your plan inherently cost more and provide less coverage? [18:46:35] So I don't think it does. And here's why. What we're proposing is an excellent public plan, one that would be better than what most people with private insurance have today, especially when you have coverage. But it turns out through these high deductibles and co-pays are such that it's actually not taking care of your medical. We would create a better plan. And if I'm right, that is really the best. [18:47:00] Everybody's going to want eventually it'll actually take us toward Medicare for all because everybody will choose. But what if you're wrong? What if for some people there are other plans that are better? And I'm thinking, for example, about the culinary workers here in Nevada. [18:47:14] They have negotiated for an excellent plan. And by the way, they traded away their wages as part of the negotiation. [18:47:21] They could have held out for higher wages and instead as part of the bargaining process, got this excellent plan. They've even got their own planets. Why to say that their plan is is not worth preserving. I would rather set up ours, and if it really is better deal pickets and if it's not, we're gonna be really glad we didn't kick them off. So the idea is just to put a little bit of humility into our policy and over time allow people to make their own choices. [18:47:50] It also has the benefit of being people. So I can explain how we're going to pay for every cent. Most of it by rolling back the Trump tax cut on corporation, which wasn't needed in the first place and is disproportionately helping those who are already best off some of the other plants, especially Senator Sanders. He refuses to even say what is will cause. [18:48:12] And I think we have a responsibility to explain the cost of our plans, especially at a time when Americans are being told, well, you don't you don't deserve answers. I think we do. But again, if you believe in Medicare for all and actually think it's it's an attractive destination, then my plan will get us there. If we're right, then it's gonna be the best answer for. [18:48:33] He will. So I did a lot of research on your health care plan. It says you plan to cap health insurance premiums to 8.5 percent of an individual's income. So my question pertains to deductibles, because most deductibles for plans in the marketplace range anywhere from four top thirty five hundred now to about seventy five hundred. [18:48:54] So on top of that, even point five percent. That's a lot of money. So yeah, how would I get to see. [18:49:04] That's why we're not just looking at the premiums. We also need to make sure that deductibles are kept low. And what we know is that the purchasing power plan, as big as the one we're going to create should mean that it's more cost effective than what's out there on the exchanges today. Yeah, I think we should put it to the test. [18:49:22] But I believe as a matter of math, that is what we can expect. But I also make sure without having to to wait and see that we have a cap on out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs that if you're very low income comes to zero. But no matter your income never goes above $250 a month. And the reason it's gonna be bumpy and I'm surprised I'm the only candidate who's talked about. Is that right now? [18:49:45] See, a lot of folks who will delay a procedure prescription till they get to a certain month, right? Because you're waiting for your captain. And it makes no sense medically, and we don't experience the economy on a yearly basis, both our bills come in every month. The question is how do we make sure that the structure matches our economic reality? And I think a monthly deficit. [18:50:09] Shall we talk about diamonds? [18:50:11] OK. Well, you know what happened here? [18:50:14] October 1st, 2017. I think they had had a huge impact on the matters. A lot of my students experience it. I had a student said relatives that were. Injured in that. [18:50:27] So what will you do as president to prevent individuals like the one responsible were reversed? I can say name the mass shooting in Las Vegas, which left 58 dead and more than eight hundred fifty injured from the apartment. Guns and ammunition. [18:50:45] So some. The first, of course, as most Americans read, that we at least need to be doing it snackers. We're talking about most gun owners, most Republicans, most independents, of course, most Democrats, the Greens. The real question, how can most Americans agree something ought to happen? It doesn't in the course of my mind. And so can I. And that shows you what's broken in our democracy. [18:51:11] Everything from the filibuster to voter suppression, which is often racial in its nature to the way that districts are being drawn in this country, making it harder for the American people to get what the assist is needed. But I believe presidential leadership, combined with the activism of students and moms, can break that logjam. We need background checks. We need red flag. And somebody is identified as a danger, especially by their mom. [18:51:39] There needs to be to ensure that they can be responsibly disarm. We need to disarm domestic abuse, assault weapons of the kind that are used to perpetrate these mass shootings. There's no reason for anything remotely resembling the kind of weaponry I trained. Certain abilities would have to be sold for profit. Maybe a new American school or neighborhood or a concert. And again, these are common sense positions. [18:52:07] We've got to do is actually drive them through it. Senate refuses to listen. And folks will always say, well, it wouldn't prevent this from being or wouldn't have thought that she would. Maybe that's true. But these provisions will save thousands and thousands of lives. And it's true when we look at the horrific mass shootings like wide open and also, of course, we have as many shootings, as many losses as we have in a mass shooting every day, disproportionately impacting black and brown youth happening in cities, including mine that communities have stepped up to do. Remarkable. Say what effect? [18:52:45] A hundred dollars that my campaign co-chair sharing that brought us here. Council member from our city and West Ham with one of our community leaders is here. And every day that I was mayor, we were arm in arm working to ensure that we were preventing these kinds of harm. We're always doing the left hand tied behind our back because we couldn't do anything about the actual guns and the communities that are fighting these issues deserve. [18:53:16] The federal government will take that seriously and the president will create some level of accountability for senators who, by refusing to even have a vote on something like background checks, would pass the House but is dying. And that's a concern. They're not only defying Democratic leaders there, defying their poll vote when they refused. [18:53:35] There has to be a political price. How are you going to battle? [18:53:41] Well, to me that this is the best use of bigger plan to close a deal. The president uses it mostly for the purpose of traveling between golf courses and using only golf. So that won't be a problem. You will see is me flying directly into the backyard of a member of the Senate who by getting in the way of these games, by not only my White House, but their own voters, and have that conversation directly to the voters. [18:54:09] And what I've seen that also, I think will change what's possible is the level of mobilization by everyone from students Sunday night old enough to vote all the way through groups like moms and dads that are demanding that something that we have to make sure since it seems like the only language that the Senate GOP response is the language of political power, we need to make sure that in that language we communicate that they can't resist this. [18:54:36] So I had this discussion about that. A lot of my classes, obviously, and everybody seems very conflicted about it regardless of their being shitty. I'm offended by. [18:54:55] And so I'm curious how you're going to go about that, because it seems like. They know, but they don't know what the answer is. [18:55:10] Well, this is where I think leadership makes a difference to shape the conversation. And we have to remind Americans of certain things. So, for example, I think a lot of dorm room arguments about this issue. Some folks say what the Constitution says segment says it can't infringe on these rights. Therefore, you can't have any restrictions. And if you just stop for a minute, we. We already know that's not true because, you know, they're constitutionally tested limits on what somebody can apply. Everybody can have a water board. Right. Nobody can have a nuclear weapon. [18:55:42] Somewhere we like somebody to be a slingshot and a predator drone. We have drawn a line as this started up no further. So there's no constitutional rule that began. [18:55:53] We'll hear a debate within the framework of the constitution is where that line should go. And most Americans agree that that line should be moving in a tighter direction to save lives. Do you think that these regulations apply to, you know. [18:56:08] They're going to decrease naturally, that's a little every day that the test can't be will this prevent every test? [18:56:16] Is this going to save lives and move us toward being a country that stands among other developed countries is simply only one that tolerates this level of. Oh, that was a dumb one. So they're talking about everyday issues, neighborhoods. When we're talking about mass shooting or when we're talking about gun suicide, which is not talked about enough, people need to realize that suicide attempts are less likely to be fatal in places that take steps to ensure that people who are at risk don't have access to firearms. It's not it's not true that somebody who's at risk of suicide cannot be saved. And gun policy is part of. Here we talk about climate. [18:56:59] This is another really hot topic, obviously, and especially for younger segments of the population because they're seeing what's happening. How would you like to see California wildfires, Australia? You know, it's become. Can I think the younger generation and really worry about their future. Right. So climate change has been described as one of the most significant threats to our economic future. [18:57:29] What steps are you planning to take in order to combat? So there's no question that this is the existential global security threat of our time. And it's no longer theoretical. It is happening in desert droughts in the west. Rising sea levels in Florida, wildfires in California. And I'm looking at my SBN friends. We've we've had flooding in our own community. We've we've had we have a once in a thousand year flood. [18:57:57] And then two years later, we had another. So we can no longer wage this always fear. This is upon us and it's only going to get more. So that's why we need to show that we mean business and do something about it. What does that look like? Well, we got to rejoin the Paris climate war on day one. That is fabless. We also need to make sure that we're setting up an economy that will grow with the direction of sustainability. [18:58:21] That means a carbon price and dividend as we assess a tax on carbon pollution so that we can rebuild it right back up to the American people. It's not about taking money away. It's about making sure that the pricing in our economy actually supports the right kind of economic growth. And by the way, if we get this right, we are creating millions of jobs. I mean, look no further than Nevada, where the solar industry is doing remarkably and employing a lot of people. That's what green jobs look like. They're all around us. And there will be, we estimate, a net 3 million new jobs created through kind of that. [18:58:53] The other thing I would point to is that this needs to be a national mobilization. This has to be something that the entire country feels that is part of. And that includes reaching out to communities that maybe feel like right now, except in climate science would actually be a defeat. Thinking about ranchers, farmers, about industrial workers, we actually very much need them and give a hearty solution that the future of ranching and farming could actually be carbon. If we invest in the technology, the future of labor is absolutely tied up with our ability to deliver these guys changes. [18:59:28] Well, we have to invest and that's what my plan does. Last thing, there needs to be U.S. leadership in global finance. And here I see an opportunity because the world already knows this is a problem and it's a problem that won't be fixed by the U.S. alone because we're only one fifth of the emissions. So at a time like this, with our credibility as a country dangling by what would be a good time for us to be seen leading the world on something that the world already agrees, a problem executive, exactly. How we restore it is to put this at the heart, I believe our domestic policy, but at the heart of our global engagement. [19:00:07] So how do you rank this in terms of your priorities if you get elected? Is there any sense of urgency and tapping, maybe offset the policies of the current administration that, you know, he's talking a lot of policy thinking regulation? That's right. So how urgent is this for you? [19:00:25] This is as essential that the scientists tell us. We have until that on the third stage, a number of major steps now is that scientific deadlines 2030, the real deadline, the political deadline is twenty five if we don't elect a president and release and run science. Now, remember, we hit those targets and that means as president, there will have to be data on activity. And at the stroke of a pen, we can make some important changes, reversing Trump's gutting of clean air and clean water and clean power first. [19:00:59] And as I said, things like we do in Paris, we're also today rolling out a new level of detail, our plan for protecting public lands and public. This is something that this administration clearly says. And when we see the way that that publicly funded land is being carved and tribal interests are not being taken, serious environmental interests are not inserted into their real arms, as are the harms of racial justice that are at stake in the way that communities of color are disproportionately suffering from the kinds of pollution that the Trump administration is making easier. [19:01:41] So all of this needs swift attention and will be on the very top earners in our president. [19:01:47] So is it possible to combat climate change without negatively impacting our economy in the short term? [19:01:54] I think so, but only if we're very intentional about it. It's like proposing a 200 billion dollar fund that is for the process of easing those transitions. Whether we're talking about building up workforce to be ready for those new jobs will be created or whether we're talking about swiftly, instead of subsidizing oil and gas, subsidizing the transition and any shifts that need to happen, whether it is whether it's in employees. [19:02:20] Again, we have to do that with a view toward racial justice, because it is disproportionately black and brown and native communities that have suffered the most from the acceleration of the problem could be playing a big role in developing. The solution to bargaining is on the line for things like training and jobs that we're going to need more and more. By the way, when I talk about green jobs, these aren't all exotic, futuristic, mysterious jobs. [19:02:45] I'm not union carpenters and electrical workers wages and insulators. We're going to need to do the building retrofits. A lot of the economic potential here is a lot closer at hand and we realize we have to shift gears very quickly to capture it. Otherwise, economic cost of businesses will be devastating. [19:03:05] There's a lot of the younger population and younger generation has expressed my feelings that they don't know what they want to have it because they're afraid of the future in terms of the environment. So this is definitely one of the most important topics they talked about before you talk about economy or jobs. Yeah. I'm not for policy. All right. [19:03:34] This is my area. I was to say I'm a little nervous because I screwed up. [19:03:40] So, by the way, these are questions from students. These are all pretty much passionate for students. So I added some stuff to some of that. And so, yeah, this is there's that. So tensions between the U.S. and Iran have grown dramatically since the U.S. led the Iran nuclear deal. And because of the recent U.S. assassination as General Suleimani. [19:04:02] How do you intend to address this growing tension? Well, unfortunately, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal has set in motion a chain of events which is leading us repeatedly to the brink of war. It's actually happened more than once. Remember, the president ordered an airstrike and then changed his mind at the last minute. [19:04:21] Then there was the strike. Now, General Suleimani. So we are constantly walking along the brink of an all out confrontation. If you get to the point where neither the Iranian regime nor the White House can control the flow, that's all because of the president's decision to terminate the deal that his own administration acknowledged was succeeding in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Yes, there are other issues with Iran's sponsorship of proxy groups, including targeting Americans. [19:04:52] That is serious and that requires a lot of policy to deal with. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the nuclear deal, which is about nuclear issues, does work. Now, there's no way to go back and do it the way it was originally before. But I do believe we need to prioritize return blueprint that will meet those goals and critically engage our analysts who have the same interest in having less than more nuclear proliferation, especially the Middle East, and wanting to move toward a less volatile situation with Iran. [19:05:23] I believe that those interests still exist. I believe that while it's much harder now domestically for the Iranian regime to do this, there is still a lot of fundamental desire to ratchet down the economic as well as political pressure. And we need to have that focus on stabilizing. And yes, when it comes to a region that has only become more volatile on the president's watch. [19:05:47] How are you going to bring Iran back to the negotiating? Well, the values it will probably have to get through our partners. I cannot imagine an easy way to reestablish a bilateral relationship right now. Of course, when you need your allies, do something. It would be great not spoken in the aisle. So, you know, part of the problem now is the. Relationship we have with the very allies we need to great. [19:06:12] And this is why the top priority alongside clarifying the criteria for use force, raise the bar on the top global priority, the president has to be just restoring the credibility of the United States so that our allies and our adversaries can believe us when we say that we're going to move in a certain direction. [19:06:33] So Mark on the phone, we'll find out soon. And we know that some institutions that are set up for these purposes are quite reasonable. But all the more reason for us to engage with our allies and our partners to try to create the context for this purpose. [19:06:51] How should the U.S. respond to the Iraqi paramilitary? [19:06:56] For a withdrawal of U.S. troops? Well, again, this is a problem that should never have arisen in the first place because its response to the outrage that happened in Iraq when there was a strike on Iraqi soil without the consultation of Iraq. And this is yet another example of how the president just didn't think about the moves in the coming so that we don't even know if the situation will be in Iraq by January 20, 21. [19:07:21] But what we know is that we don't want to have any more of a ground presence than absolutely necessary for protecting U.S. interests. Well, we also know that a total departure would be a setback in the struggle against ISIS. And the last thing any of us wants to see is the U.S. being sucked back into this because we allow the problem of ISIS to grow. It's actually within reach of the. [19:07:44] Yeah. And so, you know what happened out there with ISIS and we would not have been able to essentially suppress them if it wasn't for Iran. Right. So we're going to need them to come back to work with us on that. [19:08:00] Right. There's a lot of enemy is my enemy of my enemy logic. Right. That is going on in this, again, incredibly complicated place. It's not going to get less complicated, but it could get less dangerous if we have a president determined at every step to secure American interests and do it with with with partners at the table so that we're not there out there, Wolf. Remember, we heard the president say America first really needs is America. [19:08:25] And the threats of the 21st century, whether we're talking about terrorism, we're talking about cyber security, talking about climate, are not the kinds of threats that anyone can deal with along the 21st century will continue to be more interconnected than ever. And that requires a 21st century imagination about how to keep our country safe. The president's imagination, at least judging by his policies, relies on things like a big wall on the road full of alligators. [19:08:57] That's a 17th century security technology where we need to be thinking to the future. [19:09:04] How do you plan on repairing our fractured relationship with many of our military allies, especially now and our trading partners, due to President Kennedy's policies and protectionism? [19:09:15] So I remember serving in Afghanistan and an incredibly multinational involved. They were British and Australian and Canadian NFL and Turkish soldiers at our side. And we would not have been able to do so much if it weren't for those partnerships. And this is why we need to become a more credible partner. Partner. How we do it, I think, is the lead with our values. America's edge has always been that most people around the world, including those whose governments were hostile to us, agreed with the basic things we say. [19:09:55] We stand for democracy, human rights, freedom. We've always been imperfect in how we deal with how we live up to those, but plenty with them. We bring the world along with us. That, I think, needs to be at the heart of our alliances. And he also deserves to play a bigger role in our trade. She thinks the U.S. FCA, the recent deal with Canada and Mexico, took many steps in the right direction, even though it's not perfect. [19:10:19] Largely because Democrats insisted that more labor and enforceability concerns were reflected in the deal. We cannot do this alone, and we should have to choose between free trade and trade. [19:10:35] You know, my community is in the middle of the industrial Midwest. [19:10:38] It was a car maker. And we experience all of those moments of economic pain that came with the first round of free trade in the 1990s. People coming along saying, just go along with this. It'll be that the pie is going to get so much bigger. You don't have to worry about your slice. What happened was half the story. Enter the pie that bigger, but not so much on the radar. And that's why there is a very natural frustration around. [19:11:09] The answer is not to shut out the rest of the world or go poke our trading partners in the eye. The answer is to make sure that the future of trade is about fair trade that benefits workers. That's as far as its ranchers benefits. Our social and political and environmental goals and ensuring that those high standards are met in any trade agreement. [19:11:33] OK. And what compromises are you willing to make to appeal to voters who voted for Trump in the last election? That may be wavering on their support for him now. [19:11:44] So one of the things I've seen it everywhere I go is that we have been able to reach out not just to Democrats, not just to independents, but I like to call them future. Former Republicans are very, very welcome to join us in this effort. And I find that the outreach is not so much about pretending to be more conservative than we are. It's about recognizing a lot of folks don't just vote party or don't just vote ideology. And even if you are a traditional Republican for reasons you really believe in, conservative ideas don't seem that surprising. [19:12:19] If you're a conservative because you believe in, you know, fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, it's got a trillion dollar deficit. If you are a conservative because you believe in norms and institutions, this president is smashing them. Right. If you're a conservative because you believe in the importance of family. I want to get started on this recipe. So what we need to do is reach out, not necessarily by trying to split the middle on every idea from an ideological cause. I don't think it's about ideology. [19:12:55] IT's about policy, but it's also about how we're going to move this country forward and just setting a different tone. I don't think you have to be a die hard Democrat. I hope one day to have a president because. Look and feel your blood pressure go down instead of up through the roof. [19:13:10] That's part of what I'm offering alongside policy ideas that there's actually a strong American majority supporting, as we've been discussing from talking of gun violence to doing something about climate change to raise wages, they're holding big corporations. [19:13:25] How do you plan to appeal to voters that feel frustrated with what they perceive as a two party system that doesn't represent it, doesn't have their best interests in mind? So this is something we talked about a lot in classes that people don't know. They're like, I don't feel like the Republican Party has my interests in mind. I don't think that the Democratic Party does. How are going to do that? We know that generally speaking, when we talk about these third parties, we generally don't have a chance in this winner-take-all type of system. Yeah. [19:13:56] You know, I'm a Democrat because I believe in the values that guide my party. But I've been frustrated with my party and I think anybody runs for office has reasons to be frustrated with the party. Either way, I think the answer is to make sure that we are as close to the concerns of individuals as possible and we're putting together real solutions and that we focus not so much on candidates as on voters. [19:14:26] We every election is actually just about one, but it's a voter asking a question how's my life going to be different if you get elected president instead of me? And if we can answer that question, I think we have better answers on that question. We're the ones trying to get your race are the ones ready for paid family leave. [19:14:43] Those are going to do something about guns on them, that that's how we can win and also how we can just keep the noise machine that this president, who has a gift for changing the subject and the subject of every election should not be him or me. Could you do that? [19:15:02] How do you apply the skills that you've gained as a bear from a small city in Indiana to the national level? [19:15:09] There is always. There's no job like president. There's also no job with me. And when you're there, you are not debating positions in a committee room. You're not just responsible for trying to vote the right way on. You've got to. You will never hear about a city shutting down its government because they couldn't agree to pass something. I mean, the city government delivers water and he wanted to live. So we just figure it out when it comes to budget time. We don't get to France usna currency. So you just figure out a way to make it add up. And there's a tough event. [19:15:48] Take Higgins's kesselman. Could you share that? We have big, tough decisions to make it all. [19:15:54] But we do. And I think we need more of that attitude. So when people say what makes you think they are only going to watch you, not even a mayor of one of the great global cities in the United States? I would say that's that's the point. We need a different entity going to Washington. You can't expect to defeat this president or to govern this country by falling back on the familiar going to the same thing. [19:16:18] And by the way, every time my party has won the White House in the last half century, it's been with a candidate who either didn't have an office in Washington or hadn't been there for very long. And so I think that different kind of perspective and being from a community that knows what it is to feel passed up by Washington and Wall Street life, it is a big part of how we can get things to move in the right direction before it's too late. [19:16:42] We are I have I have to this last question is what I see that we are on the side. So you have mentioned you are a man of faith. Well, your religious beliefs have an influence on your decision making. [19:16:55] As president, would you believe in a separation of religion and faith? So, first of all, I will make decisions that are for people of every religion and of no religion, because the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of this country. And because I know what it's like to be required to live under somebody else's interpretation of their religion, I very much know what's at stake. My marriage depends on. I also believe in being transparent about how I feel. [19:17:27] And that's why I've talked about faith on the campaign trail. It's not that I would ever impose my understanding of my faith on anybody else. It's that I want people understand where I take my cue in terms of how I approach issues with a lot of worldly. For example, the fact that we need to talk about and deal with poverty a lot more in this country. You know, poverty is at the heart of Sydney that the Christian tradition on and so does the idea that the risk to make ourselves useful to those who are oppressed and those who are cast out and those who are wrong. [19:18:03] And that does have implications for the priorities that that. I believe I'm responsible for fault. But I will only ever make a decision or advance an idea that can be defended on equal terms to people of any religion and no religion, because that's how our democracy is set up. But I will also not hesitate to point out the hypocrisy of a president in a party who try to cloak themselves in religion. I mean, this guy didn't. [19:18:35] There's something really shocking about the idea of an administration that seems to always be out to afflict the afflicted and comfort the company. And it's one of the reasons I think it's so important, just as a candidate to go out there and insist that God does not belong to political party. [19:18:56] Thank you. I think we are out of time. Thank you so much.
DOD BUDGET HEARING P1
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on their budget 09:05:37 >> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. THE COMMITTEE THIS MORNING 09:05:39 WELCOMES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES, CHAIRMAN OF THE 09:05:42 JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN FOR OUR HEARING 09:05:46 ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST, 09:05:51 AND THE ASSOCIATED FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM. 09:05:58 EXCUSE ME. THE 2010 REVIEW AND THE 2010 09:06:03 BALLISTIC MISSEL DEFENSE REVIEW. GENTLEMEN, AS ALWAYS, WE ARE 09:06:09 THANKFUL TO YOU, FOR YOUR FAMILIES FOR YOUR DEDICATED 09:06:12 SERVICE TO OUR NATION, TO THE SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN, 09:06:16 MARINES AT HOME AND IN HARM'S WAY AROUND THE GLOBE AND TO 09:06:18 THEIR FAMILIES. YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE WELFARE 09:06:21 OF OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILY SHINES THROUGH ALL THAT YOU DO. 09:06:25 THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THAT. 09:06:27 AND WE ARE GRATEFUL AND EAGER TO HELP WHENEVER WE CAN. 09:06:31 THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST INCLUDES $549 BILLION 09:06:38 FOR THE BASE BUDGET AND $159 BILLION FOR THE ONGOING WARS IN 09:06:41 IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. ON TOP OF THE $708 BILLION 09:06:48 REQUEST FOR 2011, THE ADMINISTRATION IS INCLUDED A 09:06:53 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST OF $33 BILLION TO FUND THE ADDITIONAL 09:06:58 30,000 TROOPS TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S AFGHANISTAN POLICY 09:07:02 ANNOUNCED LAST DECEMBER. THE BUDGET REQUEST CONTINUES THE 09:07:07 DEFENSE REFORMS BEGUN LAST YEAR TO REBALANCE THE FORCE TOWARD 09:07:11 THE MILITARY CAPABILITIES NECESSARY TO PREVAIL IN TODAY'S 09:07:17 CONFLICTS TO BUY WEAPONS THAT ARE RELEVANT 09:07:20 ENSURE THAT TAX DOLLARS ARE USED WISELY. 09:07:23 THE LONG-ANTICIPATED 2009 DEFENSE REVIEW, THE QDR REPORT 09:07:28 WAS ALSO SUBMITTED ON MONDAY WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S 2011 09:07:32 BUDGET. THIS IS AND THE REPORT IS 09:07:37 EXPLICIT, A WARTIME QDR. THE DEPARTMENT'S ANALYSIS AND 09:07:40 DECISIONS PLACE THE FOCUS AND PRIORITY ON POLICIES, PROGRAMS, 09:07:44 AND INITIATIVES THAT SUPPORT THE CURRENT FIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN AND 09:07:47 IRAQ AND AGAINST AL QAEDA. THE QDR MAKES AND JUSTIFIES 09:07:53 TOUGH CHOICES, INDICATES THAT MORE TRADE-OFFS WILL BE 09:07:56 NECESSARY IN THE FUTURE. I'LL NOTE THAT ALONG WITH THE 09:08:01 BUDGET REQUEST, THE ADMINISTRATION SUBMITTED THE 09:08:04 BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE REVIEW. 09:08:06 THIS REVIEW WAS REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZE ACT 09:08:09 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009. THIS IS THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE 09:08:14 POLICY AND STRATEGY FRAMEWORK FOR MISSILE DEFENSE AND IT IS 09:08:18 LONG OVERDUE. SECRETARY GATES' COVER MEMO 09:08:23 NOTES THAT "I HAVE MADE THE NEAR TERM REGIONAL THREATS A TOP 09:08:27 PRIORITY OF OUR PLANS, PROGRAMS, AND CAPABILITIES." 09:08:33 AND THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT WITH WHAT CONGRESS HAS BEEN 09:08:35 URGING FOR MANY YEARS. BEFORE NEW MISSILE DEFENSE 09:08:38 PROGRAMS WILL BE DEPLOYED, THEY MUST FIRST BE TESTED AND 09:08:43 DEMONSTRATE THEY ARE EFFECTIVE AND RELIABLE. 09:08:45 IT ALSO STATES THAT OUR PROGRAMS MUST BE FISCALLY SUSTAINABLE 09:08:49 OVER THE LONG-TERM. AND IT EMPHASIZES INTERNATIONAL 09:08:56 COOPERATION WITH OUR ALLIES AND PARTNERS AND COOPERATION WITH 09:09:00 RUSSIA. THOSE ARE ELEMENTS OF A SOUND 09:09:02 MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY. CONSISTENT WITH THE REFORM GOALS 09:09:05 SET OUT BY SECRETARY GATES AND THE RESULTS OF THE DEFENSE 09:09:11 REVIEW, A TOP PRIORITY FOR THE DEPARTMENT MUST BE THE THE 09:09:17 ONGOING CONFLICTS OF IRAQ. WE HAVE TO ENSURE THEIR O 09:09:21 COMMANDERS HAVE WHAT THEY NEED TO SUCCEED IN THOSE CONFLICTS, 09:09:24 INCLUDING TECHNOLOGIES TO COUNTER IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE 09:09:30 DEVICES AND ALTER ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES. 09:09:36 AND THIS COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE NEEDS OF OUR MEN 09:09:38 AND WOMEN WHO ARE IN THOSE CONFLICTS. 09:09:43 EXCUSE ME. I HAVE LONG ARGUED THAT THE 09:09:48 PRINCIPAL MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN SHOULD BE TRAINING THE AFGHAN 09:09:50 SECURITY FORCES SO THEY CAN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SECURITY 09:09:52 OF THEIR COUNTRY. BUT WE HEARD DURING OUR VISIT -- 09:09:56 OUR RECENT VISIT TO AFGHANISTAN WAS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 09:10:00 SPEECH AT WEST POINT IN DECEMBER HAD A TANGIBLE POSITIVE EFFECT 09:10:07 ON AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES. LIEUTENANT GENERAL BILL 09:10:11 CALDWELL, THE HEAD OF NATO TRAINING MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN 09:10:14 TOLD US THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SETTING OF THE JULY 2011 DATE 09:10:18 FOR THE BEGINNING OF U.S. TROOP REDUCTIONS ENERGIZED 09:10:24 AFGHANISTAN'S LEADERSHIP MADE CLEAR TO THEM THAT PRESIDENT 09:10:27 OBAMA MEANS BUSINESS WHEN HE SAYS OUR COMMITMENT IS NOT 09:10:32 OPEN-ENDED. AND GOT THEM TO FOCUS ON 09:10:33 PLANNING FOR THE SHIFT IN RESPONSIBILITY FOR AFGHAN 09:10:36 SECURITY THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED BY THAT 2011 JULY DATE. 09:10:41 AND EVEN MORE THAN A PAY RAISE, GENERAL CALDWELL TOLD US THAT 09:10:45 THE JULY 2011 DATE INCREASED RECRUITING OF AFGHAN SOLDIERS. 09:10:52 AND THIS IS CALDWELL SPEAKING. AFGHAN LEADERS CALLED FOR AND 09:10:57 REACHED OUT FOR LOCAL LEADERS TO PRODUCE NEW RECRUITS ACROSS THE 09:10:59 COUNTRY. THE NUMBER OF AFGHAN RECRUITS IN 09:11:05 TRAINING HAS JUMPED FROM 3,000 IN NOVEMBER TO OVER 11,000 LAST 09:11:08 MONTH. KEY TO SUCCESS OF THE MISSION OF 09:11:13 STRENGTHENING THE AFGHAN ARMY WILL BE THE PARTNERING OF 09:11:17 COALITION AND AFGHAN UNITS TOGETHER ON A UNION UNIT TO ONE 09:11:20 UNIT BASIS. AND FOR AFGHANS TO TAKE THE LEAD 09:11:23 IN OPERATIONS. THE BUDGET THE PRESIDENT SENT 09:11:25 OVER YESTERDAY INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES FOR THE 09:11:28 TRAINING AND PARTNERING MISSIONS, INCLUDING INCREASED 09:11:32 FUNDING FOR THE AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES FUND IN BOTH THE 2010 09:11:37 SUPPLEMENTAL AND THE 2011 REQUEST. 09:11:40 THE FULLY INTEGRATED PARTNERING OF COALITION AND AFGHAN UNITS 09:11:44 LIVING TOGETHER AND INTEGRATING THEIR LIVES DAILY IS AT THE 09:11:47 HEART OF OUR TROOP'S MISSION. DAVID RODRIGUEZ, THE COMMANDER 09:11:52 OF THE ISAF IN AFGHANISTAN HAS PROMISED TO GET US DATA 09:11:58 INDICATED ON A CHART I HAVE UP BEHIND ME IN A CHART WHICH IS 09:12:03 CIRCULATED ON THE NUMBER OF AFGHAN UNITS WITH COALITION 09:12:06 FORCES AND HOW MANY OF THOSE AFGHAN UNITS ARE IN THE LEAD IN 09:12:08 OPERATIONS. THIS EFFORT IS KEY TO THE 09:12:13 TRANSITION TO AN AFGHAN LEAD IN PROVIDING FOR THE NATION'S 09:12:14 SECURITY. AND WE WILL TRACK THIS DATA VERY 09:12:21 CLOSELY. WHILE I'M PLEASED WITH THE 09:12:24 INCREASED PARTNERING IN THE FIELD. 09:12:25 WE WERE DISAPPOINTED WITH THE SHORTFALL IN TRAINERS WITH THE 09:12:28 INITIAL TRAINING NEEDED FOR THE AFGHAN ARMY AND POLICE. 09:12:32 CALDWELL TOLD US HE ONLY HAD 37% OF THE REQUIRED U.S. AND NATO 09:12:37 TRAINERS ON HAND. AND NATO COUNTRIES WERE ABOUT 09:12:41 90% SHORT OF MEETING THEIR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE ABOUT 09:12:46 2,000 NON-U.S. TRAINERS. THAT'S SIMPLY INEXCUSABLE AND 09:12:49 OUR NATO ALLIES MUST DO MORE TO CLOSE THE GAP IN TRAINERS. 09:12:57 AN AREA PERSONNEL, I'M PLEASED THIS REQUIRES INCREASED FUNDING 09:13:01 FOR PERSONNEL AND FOR THE DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM. 09:13:05 THE BUDGET REQUEST INCLUDES FUNDING TO SUPPORT THE CARE AND 09:13:09 TREATMENT OF WOUNDED WARRIORS INCLUDING $ 1.1 BILLION FOR THE 09:13:13 TREATMENT, CARE, AND RESEARCH OF TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES, TBI, 09:13:17 AND PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH. THE BUDGET WOULD ALSO INCREASE 09:13:21 FUNDING FOR FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS BY $500 MILLION OVER 09:13:24 LAST YEAR'S LEVELS AND INCLUDE THE FUNDING NECESSARY TO SUPPORT 09:13:28 THE TEMPORARY INCREASE OF THE ARMY'S ACTIVE DUTY TO 569,000, 09:13:34 WHICH WILL HELP IMPROVE DWELL TIME AND REDUCE STRESS ON THE 09:13:37 FORCE. THE CATASTROPHIC JANUARY 12th 09:13:42 EARTHQUAKE THAT STRUCK THE NATION OF HAITI REMINDED ALL OF 09:13:46 US JUST HOW INDISCRIMINATE NATURAL DISASTERS CAN BE. 09:13:52 THE DEPARTMENT HAS -- THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS 09:13:55 MOBILIZED RESOURCES AND MANPOWER TO AID IN THE RELIEF EFFORT IN 09:13:58 SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND U.S. AGENCY FOR 09:14:00 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. JUST LAST WEEK, THE COMMITTEE 09:14:02 APPROVED A $400 MILLION REPROGRAMMING TO ENSURE THE 09:14:08 DEPARTMENT WAS ADEQUATELY RESOURCED FOR THAT IMPORTANT 09:14:12 SUPPORT MISSION. WE ARE PREPARED TO CONTINUE TO 09:14:14 WORK WITH THE SECRETARY AND ADMIRAL MULLEN TO ENSURE THE 09:14:17 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IS ABLE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO 09:14:21 THIS CRITICAL HUMANITARIAN DISASTER RESPONSE EFFORT IN THE 09:14:24 WEEKS AND MONTHS AHEAD. AND WE ALL GREATLY APPRECIATE 09:14:27 THE SKILL SHOWN BY U.S. SERVICE PERSONNEL IN RESPONSE TO THE 09:14:32 HAITI DISASTER. NOW, FOLLOWING THIS HEARING IS 09:14:36 PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED THAT AROUND NOON WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO THE 09:14:41 ISSUE OF DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL. I WOULD APPRECIATE QUESTIONS ON 09:14:44 THAT SUBJECT BEING ASKED AFTER S 09:14:49 SECRETARY GATES' STATEMENT ON THAT SUBJECT AT THAT TIME. 09:14:52 SECRETARY GATES, ADMIRAL MULLEN, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR 09:14:55 TESTIMONY. AND NOW I TURN TO SENATOR McCAIN 09:14:58 FOR ANY OPENING REMARKS HE MAY HAVE. 09:15:00 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I JOIN YOU IN 09:15:03 WELCOMING THE WITNESSES TO DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 09:15:05 REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 AND THE 2010 DEFENSE REVIEW AND THE 09:15:12 IMPACT ON FUTURE REVIEWS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 09:15:16 SECRETARY GATES, I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO 09:15:19 PLACE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT ON SUPPORTING THE 09:15:22 MEN AND WOMEN OF THE ARMED FORCES. 09:15:25 I'M CONSISTENTLY AMAZED AND HEARTENED BY THE COMMITMENT AND 09:15:29 DEDICATION OF THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO CHOOSE TO ANSWER THE 09:15:32 CALL TO DEFEND THE NATION. WE ALL KNOW THEY ENDURE LONG, 09:15:38 HARD WORK UNDER VERY DEMANDING CONDITIONS AND IN SOME CASES 09:15:42 MAKING THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE. THEY IN TURN ASK THEIR FAMILIES 09:15:47 TO ENDURE UNWELCOME SEPARATIONS AND THE MURDER OF MANAGING THE 09:15:50 HOME FRONT. OUR COUNTRY'S VOLUNTEER FORCE 09:15:52 AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE A NATIONAL ASSET. 09:15:56 AND THEY DESERVE OUR STEADFAST UNITED SUPPORT. 09:16:00 INFORMED BY THE 2010 DEFENSE REVIEW, YOUR REQUEST OF $549 09:16:08 BILLION BUILDS UPON THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES YOU OUTLINED 09:16:12 IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET BY ESTABLISHING STRATEGIC 09:16:16 PRIORITIES AND IDENTIFYING WHERE THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO SPEND 09:16:18 SCARCE RESOURCES. SECRETARY GATES, LAST YEAR I 09:16:23 SUPPORTED YOUR REVIEW THAT WINNING THE WARS OF TODAY WHILE 09:16:27 DETERRING AND PREPARING FOR THE CONFLICTS OF TOMORROW REQUIRED A 09:16:31 BALANCING OF RISK. I LOOKED FORWARD TO YOUR 09:16:38 ASSESSMENT OF WHICH THIS YEAR'S BUDGET BETWEEN OUR PRESENT AND 09:16:41 FUTURE PRIORITIES. WITH 2011, OVERSEAS REQUEST OF 09:16:46 $159 BILLION, AND 2010 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST OF $33 09:16:53 BILLION SUPPORTS OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN, 09:16:56 AND I FULLY SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS TO USE OCO AND SUPPLEMENTAL 09:16:59 FUNDING TO ADDRESS MANY OPERATIONAL SHORTFALLS IN 09:17:05 AFGHANISTAN TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, 09:17:08 AND RECONNAISSANCE ASSETS. ELECTRONIC WAR FAIR 09:17:12 CAPABILITIES, AND INCREASING THE END STRENGTH OF OUR SPECIAL 09:17:15 OPERATIONS FORCES. YOUR REQUEST INCLUDES 09:17:20 SIGNIFICANT FUNDING FOR BUILDING THE AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES. 09:17:24 I REMAIN VERY CONCERNED THAT WE'RE NOT ON PACE TO ACHIEVE THE 09:17:29 IN STRENGTH OF 400,000 BY 2013 AS RECOMMENDED BY GENERAL 09:17:34 McCHRYSTAL. I'M EAGER TO HEAR IF YOU THINK 09:17:36 YOUR FUNDING REQUEST WILL ENABLE US TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL. 09:17:41 ON THE ISSUE OF A 2011 WITHDRAWAL FROM SPEAKING TO -- 09:17:48 FROM THE PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN TO THE TRIBAL LEADER IN KANDAHAR 09:17:54 WHO FOUGHT AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, THERE'S GREAT UNCERTAINTY OUT 09:17:58 THERE BECAUSE OF THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT. 09:18:01 THERE'S GREAT UNCERTAINTY WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO STAY. 09:18:03 AND IT WAS RAISED TO ME BY EVERY LEADER THAT I MET WITH. 09:18:08 INCLUDING THE PROVINCE, THE TRIBAL CHIEF WHO HAD FOUGHT 09:18:11 AGAINST THE RUSSIANS, WHO LOOKED AT ME AND SAID, ARE YOU GOING TO 09:18:16 STAY, OR ARE YOU GOING TO LEAVE LIKE YOU DID LAST TIME? 09:18:19 OUR ALLIES NEED TO BE -- AND FRIENDS IN THE REGION -- NEED TO 09:18:23 BE REASSURED THAT 2011 IS NOT A DATE FOR WITHDRAWAL. 09:18:28 AND ALTHOUGH YOUR WORDS AND THAT OUT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 09:18:31 HAVE BEEN EXCELLENT, THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT MADE THAT 09:18:34 STATEMENT IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE REASSURING TO OUR ALLIES AS WELL 09:18:37 AS TO OUR ENEMIES. BECAUSE WE ASK OUR MEN AND WOMEN 09:18:42 IN UNIFORM AND THEIR FAMILIES TO SACRIFICE SO MUCH, BOTH THE 09:18:45 CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION MUST BE READY TO MAKE SOME TOUGH 09:18:49 FUNDING DECISIONS. SOMETHING WE FAILED MISERABLY AT 09:18:53 IN PREVIOUS YEARS. DESPITE NUMEROUS CALLS LAST YEAR 09:18:57 FOR EARMARK REFORM, THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 09:19:01 BILL SIGNED INTO LAW, A BILL THAT CONTAINED OVER $4 BILLION 09:19:06 IN EARMARKS, AND $3 BILLION IN UNREQUESTED AND UNWANTED FUNDING 09:19:13 FOR C-17s AND THE ALTERNATIVE ENGINE FOR THE JOINT STRIKE 09:19:16 FIGHTER. THAT'S $7 BILLION THAT THE 09:19:19 DEPARTMENT HAD TO EAT IN PROGRAMS THAT IT DIDN'T REQUEST 09:19:21 OR NEED. THIS BUSINESS AS USUAL SPENDING 09:19:25 THAT WE'VE COME TO ACCEPT IS UNNECESSARY, WASTEFUL, AND IT 09:19:30 DIVERTS PRECIOUS FUNDING FROM OTHER MORE PRESSING MILITARY 09:19:32 PRIORITIES. SECRETARY GATES, I WAS 09:19:35 ENCOURAGED IN YOUR ROLLOUT OF THE BUDGET YESTERDAY THAT YOU 09:19:38 LAID AN EARLY MARKER WITH CONGRESS BY INDICATING THAT IF 09:19:41 WE ADDED FUNDS TO CONTINUE THE C-17 AND ALTERNATE ENGINE FOR 09:19:46 THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IN 2011, YOU WOULD RECOMMEND THAT 09:19:48 THE PRESIDENT VETO THE BILL. I STRONGLY SUPPORT SUCH A 09:19:54 RECOMMENDATION, BUT FEEL IT MAY FALL ON DEAF EARS UNLESS THAT 09:19:57 COMES EARLY, CONSISTENTLY, AND DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT. 09:19:59 WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO CONDONE SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON 09:20:05 PROGRAMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T WANT OR NEED. 09:20:08 AND IF THE PRESIDENT IS REALLY SERIOUS, HE'S REALLY SERIOUS 09:20:13 ABOUT NOT WASTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE OF THE TAXPAYERS' 09:20:16 MONEY, HE SHOULD ALSO SAY THAT HE WILL VETO ANY APPROPRIATIONS 09:20:20 BILL THAT COMES ACROSS HIS DESK WITH EARMARKS AND PORK BARREL 09:20:24 SPENDING ON IT. IT'S GOT TO STOP. 09:20:28 ON THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM, I APPRECIATE THE 09:20:32 MANAGEMENT DECISIONS YOU ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY. 09:20:35 TO REPLACE THE PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND WITHHOLD MORE THAN 09:20:39 $600 MILLION WHERE ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIRED THAT 09:20:41 THOSE CHANGES BE MADE. AS YOU APPROPRIATELY STATED 09:20:45 YESTERDAY DURING YOUR PRESS CONFERENCE, "WHEN THINGS GO 09:20:49 WRONG, PEOPLE WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE." 09:20:53 I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN IN SOME OTHER AREAS OF GOVERNMENT. 09:20:58 I'M NONETHELESS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR COMMENT THAT IT WAS CLEAR 09:21:01 THERE WERE MORE PROBLEMS OF THE F-35 THAN YOU WERE AWARE OF WHEN 09:21:05 YOU VISITED THE FT. WORTH PLANT LAST AUGUST. 09:21:08 WITH YOUR RECENTLY ANNOUNCED MANAGEMENT DECISIONS, I HOPE THE 09:21:11 PROCESS BY WHICH YOU GET RELIABLE UP TO DATE INFORMATION 09:21:15 ABOUT IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM WHEN YOU NEED IT HAS 09:21:20 IMPROVED. HOWEVER, I'M STILL CONCERNED 09:21:21 ABOUT WHETHER THE SERVICES WOULD GET SUFFICIENTLY CAPABLE JOINT 09:21:25 STRIKE FIGHTERS WHEN THEY NEED THEM. 09:21:26 JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONAL TESTS 09:21:30 AND EVALUATION FOUND THAT CONTINUED PRODUCTION CONCURRENT 09:21:33 WITH THE SLOW INCREASE IN FLIGHT TESTING OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS 09:21:37 WILL COMMIT THE DEPARTMENT AND SERVICES TO TEST, TRAINING, AND 09:21:41 DEPLOYMENT PLANS WITH SUBSTANTIAL RISK. 09:21:44 AND THAT VERY RECENTLY DETERMINED THAT THE MARINE CORPS 09:21:47 AND THE NAVY'S VERSION OF THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER MAY END UP 09:21:51 BEING TOO EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE. WITH EACH FLIGHT HOUR FLOWN 09:21:55 COSTING ABOUT $31,000 COMPARED WITH AROUND $19,000 FOR A FLIGHT 09:22:00 HOUR FOR THE SERVICES CURRENT, F-18 HORNETS. 09:22:07 I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU COULD COMMENT ON THESE AND POTENTIALLY 09:22:09 OTHER ISSUES YOU SEE FACING THIS PROGRAM. 09:22:11 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR McCAIN. 09:22:16 AND I WILL PUT THE BALANCE OF MY STATEMENT IN THE RECORD -- AND 09:22:21 THERE'S PART I DON'T HAVE YOUR STATEMENT, THAT WILL BE MADE 09:22:23 PART OF THE RECORD IF YOU WISH. SECRETARY GATES, WE WELCOME YOU. 09:22:29 ADMIRAL MULLEN, PLEASE PROCEED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE 09:22:33 COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU 09:22:37 TO REQUEST THE BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011. 09:22:41 I FIRST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THE MEN AND 09:22:45 WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY THESE MANY YEARS. 09:22:47 THESE TROOPS ARE PART OF AN EXTRAORDINARY GENERATION OF 09:22:51 AMERICANS WHO HAVE ANSWERED THEIR COUNTRY'S CALL. 09:22:53 THEY HAVE FOUGHT OUR WARS, PROTECTED OUR INTERESTS AND 09:22:56 ALLIES AROUND THE GLOBE, AND AS WE HAVE SEEN RECENTLY IN HAITI, 09:23:00 THEY HAVE ALSO DEMONSTRATED COMPASSION AND DECENCY IN THE 09:23:03 FACE OF INCOMPREHENSIBLE LOSS. I HAVE A BRIEF OPENING STATEMENT 09:23:08 TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGET REQUEST. 09:23:11 MY SUBMITTED STATEMENT INCLUDES MANY MORE DETAILS THAT I KNOW 09:23:14 ARE OF INTEREST TO THE COMMITTEE. 09:23:16 >> MR. SECRETARY, I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU AT THIS TIME AND 09:23:18 DO SOMETHING WHICH I KNOW YOU'D LOVE US TO DO WHICH IS TO 09:23:22 APPROVE A NUMBER OF NOMINATIONS. WE HAVE A QUORUM HERE. 09:23:29 THERE IS A QUORUM ESENPR SO I'LL ASK THE COMMITTEE NOW TO 09:23:32 CONSIDER FIVE CIVILIAN NOMINATIONS AND 1,802 PENDING 09:23:39 MILITARY NOMINATIONS FIRST DOUGLAS WILSON FOR PUBLIC 09:23:43 AFFAIRS, MALCOLM ROSS O'NEILL FOR ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS AND 09:23:51 TECHNOLOGY, THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROLLER, PAUL 09:23:57 TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF NAVY, AND 09:24:01 JACQUELINE STEELE FOR INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT. 09:24:04 IS THERE A MOTION TO PROMOTE THESE NOMINATIONS? 09:24:08 ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THEY'VE BEEN BEFORE THE 09:24:15 COMMITTEE THAT REQUIRE A LENGTH OF TIME. 09:24:17 IS THERE A MOTION? >> SO MOVED. 09:24:19 >> SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. 09:24:22 >> OPPOD NEE, THE MOTION CARRIES FORWARD. 09:24:30 >> THE BUDGET REQUEST BEING PRESENTED TODAY INCLUDES $589 09:24:34 BILLION, A 3.4 INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR, OR 1.8% REAL INCREASE 09:24:39 AFTER ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION. REFLECTING THE ADMINISTRATION'S 09:24:42 COMMITMENT TO MODEST, STEADY, AND SUSTAINABLE REAL GROWTH IN 09:24:47 DEFENSE SPENDING. WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING $159 09:24:53 BILLION IN FY 2011 TO SUPPORT OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS, 09:24:59 PLUS $33 BILLION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS FISCAL YEAR TO 09:25:02 SUPPORT THE ADDED FINANCIAL COSTS OF THE PRESIDENT'S NEW 09:25:05 APPROACH IN AFGHANISTAN. THE BASE BUDGET REQUEST REFLECTS 09:25:12 THESE MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL PRIORITIES. 09:25:13 FIRST REAFFIRMING AND STRENGTHENING THE NATION'S 09:25:18 COMMITMENT TO THE ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE. 09:25:20 SECOND, REBALANCING AMERICA'S DEFENSE POSTURE BY EMPHASIZING 09:25:24 CAPABILITIES NEEDED TO PREVAIL IN CURRENT CONFLICTS WHILE 09:25:27 ENHANCING CAPABILITIES THAT MAY BE NEEDED IN THE FUTURE. 09:25:31 AND THIRD, CONTINUING THE DEPARTMENT'S COMMITMENT TO 09:25:32 REFORM HOW D.O.D. DOES BUSINESS, ESPECIALLY IN THE AREA OF 09:25:37 ACQUISITIONS. FINALLY, THE COMMITMENTS MADE IN 09:25:41 THE PROGRAMS FUNDED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS 09:25:45 DEMONSTRATE THE ADMINISTRATION'S DETERMINATION TO SUPPORT OUR 09:25:48 TROOPS AND COMMANDERS IN COMBAT SO THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH THEIR 09:25:52 CRITICAL MISSIONS AND COME HOME SAFELY. 09:25:54 THE BUDGET CONTINUES THE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY OF SHIFTING 09:25:56 MONEY TO THE BASE BUDGET FOR ENDURING PROGRAMS THAT DIRECTLY 09:26:00 SUPPORT WAR FIGHTERS AND THEIR FAMILIES. 09:26:02 WHETHER ON THE BATTLEFIELD, RECOVERING FROM WOUNDS, OR ON 09:26:06 THE HOME FRONT. TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE STEADY, 09:26:09 LONG-TERM FUNDING AND INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT. 09:26:13 THE BASE BUDGET REQUEST WAS ACCOMPANIED AND INFORMED BY THE 09:26:18 2010 DEFENSE REVIEW, WHICH ESTABLISHES STRATEGIC PRIORITIES 09:26:21 AND IDENTIFIES KEY AREAS FOR NEEDED INVESTMENT. 09:26:24 THE 2010 QDR AND FY 2011 BUDGET BUILD UPON THE SUBSTANTIAL 09:26:31 CHANCES THAT THE PRESIDENT MADE IN THE FY 2010 BUDGET REQUEST TO 09:26:37 ALLOCATE DEFENSE DOLLARS MORE WISELY AND REFORM THE 09:26:40 DEPARTMENT'S PROCESSES. THE FY 10 BUDGET PROPOSALS CUT, 09:26:44 CURTAILED, OR ENDED A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS THAT WERE EITHER 09:26:47 PERFORMING POORLY OR IN EXCESS OF REAL WORLD NEEDS. 09:26:51 CONVERSELY, FUTURE ORIENTED PROGRAMS FOR THE U.S. WAS 09:26:55 RELATIVELY UNDERINVESTED WERE ACCELERATED, OR RECEIVED MORE 09:27:05 FUNDING. Q 09:27:06 Q THE FIRST IS CONTINUED REFORM, 09:27:08 FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING THE WAY THIS DEPARTMENT DOES BUSINESS. 09:27:11 PRIORITIES WE SET, THE PROGRAMS WE FUND, THE WEAPONS WE BUY AND 09:27:15 HOW WE BUY THEM. BUILDING ON THE REFORMS OF LAST 09:27:19 YEAR'S BUDGET, THE FY AIMED AT PROGRAMS THAT WERE 09:27:24 EXCESS OR PERFORMING POORLY. THEY INCLUDE TERMINATING THE 09:27:30 NAVY EPX INTELLIGENCE AIRCRAFT, ENDING THE THIRD GENERATION 09:27:35 INFRARED SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM, CANCELING THE NEXT GENERATION 09:27:39 CGX CRUISER, TERMINATING THE NET ENABLED CONTROL PROGRAM, ENDING 09:27:44 THE DEFENSE AND INTEGRATED MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCES SYSTEM 09:27:48 DUE TO COST OVERRUNS AND PERFORMANCE CONCERNS. 09:27:51 COMPLETING THE C-17 PROGRAM AND CLOSING THE PRODUCTION LINE. 09:27:55 AS MULTIPLE STUDIES IN RECENT YEARS SHOW THE AIR FORCE ALREADY 09:27:58 HAS MORE OF THESE AIRCRAFT THAN IT NEEDS. 09:28:01 AND ENDING THE ALTERNATE ENGINE FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE 09:28:05 FIGHTER HAS WHATEVER BENEFITS MIGHT ACCRUE ARE MORE THAN 09:28:08 OFFSET BY EXCESS COSTS, COMPLEXITY, AND ASSOCIATED 09:28:11 RISKS. I AM FULLY AWARE OF THE 09:28:15 POLITICAL PRESSURE TO CONTINUE BUILDING THE C-17 AND PROCEED 09:28:18 WITH AN ALTERNATE ENGINE FOR THE F-35. 09:28:21 SO LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. I WILL STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT 09:28:24 THE PRESIDENT VETO ANY LEGISLATION THAT SUSTAINS THE 09:28:28 UNNECESSARY CONTINUATION OF THESE TWO PROGRAMS. 09:28:32 THE BUDGET AND REVIEWS ARE ALSO SHAPED BY A BRACING DOSE OF 09:28:36 REALISM. REALISM WITH REGARD TO RISK, 09:28:38 REALISM WITH REGARD TO RESOURCES. 09:28:41 WE HAVE IN A SOBER AND CLEAR-EYED WAY ASSESSED RISK, 09:28:44 SET PRIORITIES, MADE TRADE-OFFS, AND IDENTIFIED REQUIREMENTS 09:28:48 BASED ON PLAUSIBLE REAL WORLD THREATS, SCENARIOS, AND 09:28:52 POTENTIAL ADVERSARIES. JUST ONE EXAMPLE. 09:28:55 FOR YEARS U.S. DEFENSE PLANNING AND REQUIREMENTS WERE BASED ON 09:28:58 PREPARING TO FIGHT TWO MAJOR CONVENTIONAL WARS AT THE SAME 09:29:03 TIME. A CONSTRUCT THAT PERSISTED LONG 09:29:07 AFTER TAKING OVER EVENTS. THE DEPARTMENT'S LEADERSHIP NOW 09:29:10 RECOGNIZES WE MUST PREPARE FOR A MUCH BROADER RANGE FOR SECURITY 09:29:12 CHALLENGES ON THE HORIZON. THEY RANGE FROM THE USE OF 09:29:16 SOPHISTICATED NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO DENY OUR FORCES ACCESS TO THE 09:29:20 GLOBAL COMMONS OF SEA, AIR, SPACE, AND CYBER SPACE TO THE 09:29:24 THREAT POSED BY NON-STATE GROUPS DELIVERING MORE CUNNING AND 09:29:28 DESTRUCTIVE MEANS TO ATTACK AND TERRORIZE. 09:29:31 SCENARIOS THAT TRANSCEND THE FAMILIAR CONTINGENCIES THAT 09:29:34 DOMINATED U.S. PLANNING AFTER THE COLD WAR. 09:29:37 WE HAVE LEARNED THROUGH PAINFUL EXPERIENCE THAT THE WARS WE 09:29:41 FIGHT ARE SELDOM THE WARS THAT WE PLANNED. 09:29:45 AS A RESULT, THE UNITED STATES NEEDS A BROAD PORTFOLIO OF 09:29:48 MILITARY CAPABILITIES WITH MAXIMUM VERSATILITY ACROSS THE 09:29:53 WIDEST POSSIBLE SPECTRUM OF CONFLICT. 09:29:55 THIS STRATEGIC REALITY SHAPED THE QDR'S ANALYSIS AND 09:30:00 SUBSEQUENT CONCLUSIONS WHICH DIRECTLY INFORMED THE PROGRAM 09:30:02 DECISIONS CONTAINED IN THE BUDGET. 09:30:04 BEFORE CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER TWO THOUGHTS TO CONSIDER 09:30:08 WHEN ASSESSING THE U.S. INVESTMENT IN NATIONAL DEFENSE. 09:30:11 FIRST, THE REQUEST SUBMITTED THIS WEEK TOTALLED MORE THAN 09:30:13 $700 BILLION. A MASSIVE NUMBER TO BE SURE. 09:30:19 BUT AT 4.7% GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, IT REPRESENTS A 09:30:23 SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER PORTION OF NATIONAL WEALTH GOING TO DEFENSE 09:30:27 AND WAS SPENT DURING MOST OF AMERICA'S PREVIOUS MAJOR WARS. 09:30:31 AND THE BASE BUDGET REPRESENTS 3.5% OF GDP. 09:30:35 SECOND, AS YOU KNOW, THE PRESIDENT RECENTLY EXEMPTED THE 09:30:39 DEFENSE BUDGET FROM SPENDING FREEZES BEING APPLIED TO OTHER 09:30:41 PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, 09:30:45 HOWEVER, THAT AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS DEPARTMENT 09:30:48 UNDERTOOK A PAIN STAKING REVIEW OF OUR PRIORITIES LAST YEAR. 09:30:52 AND AS A RESULT, CUT OR CURTAILED A NUMBER OF MAJOR 09:30:54 PROGRAMS. THESE PROGRAMS HAD THEY BEEN 09:30:59 PURSUED TO COMPLETION WOULD'VE COST THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER ABOUT 09:31:03 $330 BILLION. IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MY 09:31:07 THANKS TO YOU AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AGAIN FOR ALL YOU 09:31:10 HAVE DONE TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES IN LIGHT OF 09:31:14 THE UNPRECEDENTED DEMANDS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED UPON THEM. 09:31:18 I BELIEVE THE CHOICES MADE AND THE PRIORITIES SET IN THESE 09:31:21 BUDGET REQUESTS REFLECT AMERICA'S COMMITMENT TO SEE THAT 09:31:24 OUR FORCES HAVE THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO PREVAIL IN THE WARS THAT 09:31:29 WE ARE WHILE MAKING THE INVESTMENTS NECESSARY TO PREPARE 09:31:32 FOR THREATS ON OR BEYOND THE HORIZON. 09:31:36 >>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SECRETARY. 09:31:39 ADMIRAL MULLEN. >> DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THIS 09:31:42 COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE CHANCE TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND 09:31:46 DISCUSS THE STATE OF OUR MILITARY AS WELL AS THE 09:31:49 PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR '11 BUDGET. 09:31:53 I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARY SUPPORT YOU 09:31:55 PROVIDE EACH AND EVERY DAY TO OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM AS 09:31:58 WELL AS THEIR FAMILIES. THAT THEY ARE WELL EQUIPPED, 09:32:02 WELL-TRAINED, WELL-PAID, AND ENJOY THE FINEST MEDICAL CARE 09:32:06 ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD IS TESTAMENT IN NO SMALL PART TO 09:32:08 YOUR DEDICATION AND STEWARDSHIP. I'VE SEEN MANY OF YOU IN THE WAR 09:32:11 ZONE IN HOSPITALS AND AT BASES ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY. 09:32:13 SO HAVE OUR TROOPS. THEY KNOW YOU CARE JUST AS 09:32:19 CRITICALLY, THEY KNOW THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS CARE. 09:32:22 ALL I WANT RIGHT NOW IS GUIDANCE ON THE MISSION BEFORE THEM AND 09:32:25 THE TOOLS TO ACCOMPLISH IT. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY TO 09:32:29 SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF ABOUT THE GUIDANCE THEY ARE GETTING FROM 09:32:32 THIS DEPARTMENT AND TO SECURE YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR THE 09:32:35 TOOLS WE WANT TO GIVE THEM. SECRETARY GATES HAS ALREADY 09:32:40 WALKED YOU THROUGH THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE DEFENSE REVIEW 09:32:43 AND THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR '11 DEFENSE SPENDING MISSION. 09:32:50 BOTH OF THEM WHEN COMBINED WITH THE DEFENSE REVIEW AND OUR 09:32:54 CONTINGENCY OPERATION FUND REQUEST BUILDS UPON THE REFORM 09:32:56 EFFORT OF LAST YEAR AND REPRESENT AS COMPREHENSIVE A 09:32:59 LOOK AT THE STATE OF OUR MILITARY AS I'VE SEEN IN MY 09:33:01 EXPERIENCE. I WILL NOT ENDEAVOR TO REPEAT 09:33:06 HIS EXCELLENT SUMMATION AND I WILL ASK YOU TO ACCEPT WITHOUT 09:33:08 FURTHER COMMENT MY ENDORSEMENT OF THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN 09:33:12 EACH OF THESE DOCUMENTS. LET ME LEAVE YOU, RATHER, WITH 09:33:15 THREE OVERARCHING THINGS TO CONSIDER AS YOU PREPARE TO 09:33:17 DISCUSS THESE ISSUES TODAY. AND AS YOU PREPARE THIS BUDGET 09:33:23 REQUEST IN THE FUTURE. FIRST, THERE'S A REAL SENSE OF 09:33:27 URGENCY HERE. WE HAVE WELL OVER 200,000 TROOPS 09:33:33 IN HARM'S WAY RIGHT NOW AND INCLUDED IN OPERATIONS IRAQI 09:33:38 FREEDOM AND ENDURING FREEDOM. OTHERS ARE ELSEWHERE AROUND THE 09:33:42 GLOBE, AND MANY OF THOSE MISSIONS ARE NO LESS DANGEROUS, 09:33:45 CERTAINLY NO LESS SIGNIFICANT. I'M SURE YOU'VE STAYED ABREAST 09:33:51 OF OUR RELIEF EFFORTS WHERE MORE THAN 20,000 OF YOUR SOLDIERS, 09:33:55 AIRMEN, AND COAST GUARDSMEN ARE PITCHING IN TO HELP ALLEVIATE 09:34:00 THE SUFFERING OF THE HAITIAN PEOPLE. 09:34:03 IT IS AN INTERNATIONAL MISSION. AND THESE TROOPS ARE BLENDING IN 09:34:05 BEAUTIFULLY, DOING WHAT IS REQUIRED WHERE AND WHEN IT IS 09:34:10 REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT OF HAITI, USAID AND 09:34:15 THE YOU KNOW MISSION THERE. WE ALSO CONTINUE TO DO WHAT IS 09:34:18 REQUIRED TO WIN THE WARS WE FIGHT. 09:34:20 AND THE ONE THAT NEEDS FIGHTING THE MOST RIGHT NOW IS IN 09:34:24 AFGHANISTAN. YOU'VE SEEN THE REPORTS AND YOU 09:34:25 KNOW THE SITUATION. THE TALIBAN HAVE A GROWING 09:34:28 INFLUENCE IN MOST OF AFGHANISTAN'S PROVINCES. 09:34:31 AND THE BORDER AREA BETWEEN THAT COUNTRY AND PAKISTAN REMAINS THE 09:34:36 EPICENTER OF GLOBAL TERRORISM. YOU NO DOUBT FILED WITH GREAT 09:34:40 INTEREST THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH THIS 09:34:43 STRATEGY. THE STRATEGY IN MY VIEW THAT 09:34:45 MAKES THE AFGHAN PEOPLE A CENTER OF GRAVITY AND THE DEFEAT OF AL 09:34:50 QAEDA A PRIMARY GOAL. WE'VE ALREADY MOVED 4,500 TROOPS 09:34:56 TO AFGHANISTAN AND EXPECT ABOUT 18,000 OF THE PRESIDENT'S 09:34:58 DECEMBER 1st COMMITMENT WILL BE THERE BY LATE SPRING. 09:35:01 THE REMAINDER OF THE 30,000 WILL ARRIVE AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE 09:35:04 OVER THE SUMMER AND EARLY FALL. MAKING A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO 09:35:07 REVERSING THE TALIBAN MOMENTUM IN 2010. 09:35:11 INDEED, BY THE MIDDLE OF THIS YEAR, AFGHANISTAN WILL SURPASS 09:35:14 IRAQ FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 2003 AS A LOCATION WITH THE MOST 09:35:20 DEPLOYED AMERICAN FORCES. RIGHT NOW THE TALIBAN BELIEVE 09:35:23 THEY'RE WINNING. 18 MONTHS FROM NOW, IF WE'VE 09:35:27 EXECUTED OUR STRATEGY, WE'LL KNOW THEY AREN'T. 09:35:29 AND THEY'LL KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T. 09:35:33 GETTING THERE WILL DEMAND DISCIPLINE AND HARD WORK. 09:35:37 IT'LL REQUIRE EVER MORE COOPERATION WITH PAKISTAN. 09:35:39 AND IT WILL MOST ASSUREDLY DEMAND MORE SACRIFICE AND MORE 09:35:43 BLOODSHED. BUT THE STAKES ARE FAR TOO HIGH 09:35:44 FOR FAILURE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING YOU TO 09:35:48 FULLY FUND OUR FISCAL YEAR '10 SUPPLEMENTAL AND THE FISCAL YEAR 09:35:53 '11 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS REQUEST. 09:35:56 IT'S WHY WE WANTED 6% INCREASE FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND. 09:36:00 AND IT'S WHY WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT TO DEVELOP AND FIELD THE 09:36:04 NEXT GENERATION ROUND COMBAT VEHICLE TO ALLOW US TO GROW TWO 09:36:08 MORE AVIATION BRIGADES AND CONTINUE PRODUCTION, INCLUDING 09:36:12 NEARLY $3 BILLION FOR THE V-22 PROGRAM. 09:36:15 IN KEEPING WITH THE SECRETARY'S STRONG EMPHASIS ON ISR AND 09:36:20 EMPHASIS MORE THAN JUSTIFIED BY OUR LONG EXPERIENCE IN IRAQ AND 09:36:24 AFGHANISTAN, WE ARE ASKING FOR MORE CAPABILITY AND UNMANNED 09:36:28 AIRCRAFT AND GROUND BASE COLLECTION SYSTEM, INCLUDING 09:36:30 NEARLY $3 BILLION TO DOUBLE THE PROCUREMENT RATE OF THE MQ9 09:36:37 REAPER. OUR FUTURE SECURITY IS GREATLY 09:36:39 IMPERILLED IF WE DO NOT WIN THE WARS WE ARE IN. 09:36:41 AS THE QDR MAKES CLEAR, THE OUTCOME OF TODAY'S CONFLICTS 09:36:45 WILL SHAPE THE GLOBAL SECURITY ENVIRONMENT FOR DECADES TO COME. 09:36:48 I'M VERY COMFORTABLE THAT WE CAN AND WILL FINISH WELL IN IRAQ, 09:36:54 REMAINING ON PACE, TO DRAW DOWN AMERICAN FORCES TO ROUGHLY 09:36:58 50,000, ENDING OUR COMBAT MISSION THERE AND TRANSITIONING 09:37:02 TO AN ADVISE AND ASSIST ROLE. WITHOUT YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT, 09:37:06 WE WILL NOT ABLE TO SHOW THE MEANINGFUL PROGRESS IN 09:37:11 AFGHANISTAN THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF HAS ORDERS, THE AMERICAN 09:37:14 PEOPLE EXPECT AND THE AFGHAN PEOPLE NEED. 09:37:17 THIS IS NO MISSION OF MERCY. THIS IS A PLACE FROM WHICH WE 09:37:20 WERE ATTACKED IN 2001. THE PLACE FROM WHICH AL QAEDA 09:37:26 STILL PLOTS AND PLANS. THE SECURITY OF A GREAT NATION, 09:37:29 OURS AND THEIRS RESTS NOT ON THE SENTIMENT AND GOOD INTENTION, 09:37:33 BUT WHAT OUGHT TO BE A COLD AND UNFEELING APPRAISAL OF 09:37:36 SELF-INTEREST AND AN EQUALLY COLD AND UNFEELING PURSUIT OF 09:37:42 THE TOOLS TO PROTECT THAT INTEREST, OURS AND THEIRS. 09:37:45 THAT LEADS ME TO THE SECOND THING I'D LIKE TO CONSIDER, 09:37:48 PROPER BALANCE. WINNING OUR CURRENT WARS MEANS 09:37:52 INVESTMENT IN OUR WAR FAIR EXPERTISE. 09:37:56 A CORE COMPETENCY THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED IN RECENT YEARS. 09:38:03 BUT WE SHOULD ALSO MAINTAIN CONVENTIONAL ADVANTAGES. 09:38:06 WE STILL FACE TRADITIONAL THREATS FROM REGIONAL POWERS 09:38:09 THAT POSSESS ROBUST, REGULAR, AND IN SOME CASES NUCLEAR 09:38:13 CAPABILITIES. THESE CANNOT BE IGNORED. 09:38:16 THE FREEDOM TO CONDUCT OPERATIONS IN SUPPORT OF JOINT, 09:38:20 ALLIED, AND COALITION EFFORTS, ENSURING ACCESS AND PROJECTING 09:38:23 COMBAT POWER CAN ONLY BE PRESERVED THROUGH ENDURING 09:38:28 WAR-FIGHTING COMPETENCIES. THIS MEANS CAPABLE OF ENSURING 09:38:33 AIR SUPERIORITY, AT SEA, MEANING HAVING ENOUGH SHIPS AND SAILORS 09:38:38 TO STAY ENGAGED GLOBALLY AND KEEP THE SEA LANES OPEN. 09:38:41 ON THE GROUND, MEANS ACCELERATING THE MONITORIZATION 09:38:46 OF OUR COMBAT BRIGADES AND REGIMENS. 09:38:49 NEVER HAVING TO FIGHT A FAIR FIGHT. 09:38:51 THUS THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, THE REQUEST WILL BUY US ANOTHER 42 09:38:57 F-35s. IT'LL FUND DEVELOPMENT OF A 09:39:00 PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE SYSTEM AS WELL AS EFFORTS TO UPGRADE OUR 09:39:03 B-2s AND B-52s. THE SPENDING PLAN, SOME PLAN 09:39:10 TOTALS SOME $16 BILLION FOR SECURING 10 NEW SHIPS IN 2011, 09:39:15 INCLUDING TWO DESTROYERS, TWO VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINES, TWO 09:39:19 LITTLE COMBAT SHIPS AND A BRAND NEW AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP. 09:39:23 IT PUTS THE NAVY ON TRACK TO MAINTAIN. 09:39:32 OUR BUDGET REQUEST ALSO SEEKS $10 BILLION FOR BALLISTIC 09:39:35 MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS, INCLUDING 8.4 BILLION FOR THE 09:39:39 MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY, AND IT DEVELOPS AMPLE RESOURCES FOR 09:39:43 IMPROVING OUR CYBER DEFENSE CAPABILITIES. 09:39:47 AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT BALANCE -- ABOUT DETERRING AND WINNING THE 09:39:50 BIG AND SMALL WARS, THE CONVENTIONAL AND THE 09:39:54 UNCONVENTIONAL. TWO CHALLENGES, ONE MILITARY. 09:39:59 WHERE THE BALANCE IS PROBABLY MOST NEEDED IS IN THE PROGRAMS 09:40:01 AND POLICIES CONCERNING OUR MOST IMPORTANT RESOURCE, OUR PEOPLE. 09:40:04 AND THAT'S MY FINAL POINT. THIS QDR AND THIS BUDGET BUILDS 09:40:08 UPON SUPERB SUPPORT. YOU IN THIS DEPARTMENT HAVE 09:40:11 PROVIDED OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR MUCH OF THE LAST 09:40:14 EIGHT YEARS. STRETCHED AND STRAINED BY NEARLY 09:40:17 CONSTANT COMBAT, MANY OF THEM ON THEIR FIFTH, SIXTH, AND SEVENTH 09:40:21 DEPLOYMENTS. OUR MEN AND WOMEN ARE WITHOUT 09:40:24 QUESTION AND ALMOST INEXPLICABLY THE MOST RESILIENT AND BATTLE 09:40:33 READY FORCE. SO ATTRACTIVE OUR CAREER 09:40:35 OPPORTUNITIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, WE KEEP 09:40:36 SEEING AN ALARMING RISE IN SUICIDES, MARITAL PROBLEMS, 09:40:41 PRESCRIPTION DRUG ADDICTIONS, AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS. 09:40:45 DEBORAH AND I MEET REGULARLY WITH YOUNG TROOPS AND THEIR 09:40:48 SPOUSES. AND THOUGH PROUD OF THE 09:40:50 DIFFERENCE THEY KNOW THEY ARE MAKING, THEY ARE TIRED. 09:40:52 MANY OF THEM ARE WORRIED ABOUT THEIR FUTURE, THEIR CHILDREN. 09:40:55 AND SO YOU WILL SEE IN THIS BUDGET NEARLY $9 BILLION FOR 09:40:59 FAMILY SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY PROGRAMS, YOU WILL SEE CHILD 09:41:02 CARE AND YOUTH PROGRAMS INCREASE BY $87 MILLION OVER LAST YEAR, 09:41:11 AND INCLUDING COUNSELING TO THE TUNE OF $37 MILLION. 09:41:14 MILITARY SPOUSE UNEMPLOYMENT WILL GET $1 MILLION PLUS, AND 09:41:19 INCREASE THE BUDGET TO $2.2 BILLION FOR WOUNDED, ILL, AND 09:41:23 INJURED MEMBERS. THE HEALTH CARE FUNDING LEVEL 09:41:26 FOR FISCAL YEAR '11 IS PROJECTED TO PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY CARE FOR 09:41:31 9.5 MILLION ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES. 09:41:34 LASTLY, WE ARE PUSHING TO DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE NUMBER 09:41:36 OF MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS ON STAFF AND ADVANCE OUR 09:41:40 RESEARCH AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES AND POST TRAUMATIC 09:41:43 STRESS. WE KNOW THE STRAIN OF FREQUENT 09:41:45 DEPLOYMENTS CAUSES MANY PROBLEMS, BUT WE WON'T YET FULLY 09:41:49 UNDERSTAND HOW WE -- WE DON'T YET FULLY UNDERSTAND HOW OR TO 09:41:52 WHAT EXTENT. EVEN AS WE WORK HARD TO INCREASE 09:41:55 DWELL TIME, AIDED IN PART BY WHAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR FOR 09:42:00 THE ARMY, WE WILL WORK EQUALLY AS HARD TO DECREASE THE STRESS 09:42:04 OF MODERN MILITARY SERVICE. INDEED, I BELIEVE OVER TIME WHEN 09:42:06 THESE WARS ARE BEHIND US, WE WILL NEED TO LOOK CLOSELY AT THE 09:42:10 COMPETING FISCAL PRESSURES THAT WILL DOMINATE DISCUSSIONS OF 09:42:16 PROPER STRENGTH. THE LONG-TERM CHALLENGES AND NOT 09:42:22 MARRIED TO ANY CONSTRUCT WILL BE VITAL TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. 09:42:26 MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR 09:42:28 YOUR TIME FOR THE LONG STANDING SUPPORT OF THIS COMMITTEE TO THE 09:42:31 MEN AND WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. 09:42:34 THEY AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE THE BEST I HAVE EVER SEEN. 09:42:38 ON THEIR BEHALF, I STAND READY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. 09:42:41 >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, ADMIRAL. WE'LL TRY A FIVE-MINUTE FIRST 09:42:45 ROUND HERE. SECRETARY, THE CHANGE IN OUR 09:42:54 AFGHANISTAN POLICY IS WHAT DROVE THE REQUIREMENT. 09:42:56 APPARENTLY FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUEST THIS YEAR. 09:43:01 IS IT YOUR GOAL TO AVOID A SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING REQUEST FOR 09:43:06 FY 2011? >> YES, SIR, IT IS. 09:43:09 OUR HOPE WOULD BE THAT THE OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS 09:43:18 APPROACH IS A PREFERRED WAY TO DO THIS. 09:43:23 AS WE SAW THIS TIME, UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT US UP HERE 09:43:27 TO DEFEND ANOTHER SUPPLEMENTAL. I THINK I'M ON THE RECORD LAST 09:43:30 YEAR AS EXPRESSING THE HOPE WE WOULDN'T BE DOING ANOTHER ONE OF 09:43:32 THOSE. BUT HERE I AM. 09:43:36 BUT IT IS OUR INTENT THAT FOR FY '11 THE OCO FUND WOULD BE 09:43:44 SUFFICIENT. >> SECRETARY, THE PRESIDENT, 09:43:46 YOU, ADMIRAL, AND OTHERS HAVE POINTED OUT THAT A PRINCIPAL 09:43:51 MISSION FOR OUR FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN IS THE TRAINING UP 09:43:54 OF THE AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES TO TAKE OVER 09:43:59 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SECURITY OF THEIR COUNTRY. 09:44:01 AND YET, OUR NATO ALLIES ARE 90% SHORT OF MEETING THEIR 09:44:09 COMMITMENT FOR TRAINERS FOR THE AFGHAN TROOPS. 09:44:11 THESE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE IN THAT EARLY BASIC TRAINING 09:44:18 EIGHT-WEEK PERIOD, NOT OUT IN THE FIELD WHERE I THINK WE'RE 09:44:21 DOING VERY WELL. AND WE ARE MEETING WHAT THE 09:44:25 GOALS ARE IN TERMS OF KIND OF ON THE JOB TRAINING, PARTNERING 09:44:29 WITH THE UNIT. BUT BACK TO THAT BASIC TRAINING. 09:44:36 NATO NON-U.S. COUNTRIES COMMITTED 2,000 TRAINERS. 09:44:42 THEY'VE PRODUCED 200. NOW, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO 09:44:44 GET GENERAL CALDWELL THOSE ADDITIONAL TRAINERS WHICH ARE SO 09:44:50 ESSENTIAL? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT 09:44:55 GENERAL CALDWELL'S SHORT ABOUT 1,700 TRAINERS. 09:44:58 OUR HOPE IS THAT WITH THE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS OF 09:45:07 SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 7,000 AND 10,000 ADDITIONAL FORCES BY OUR 09:45:11 NATO AND OTHER PARTNERS THAT OUT OF THAT NUMBER WE CAN MORE THAN 09:45:15 FILL THE REQUIREMENT FOR TRAINERS. 09:45:23 CERTAINLY ADMIRAL STAVITAS AND GENERAL PETRAEUS AND McCHRYSTAL 09:45:29 HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THEM ABOUT THIS. 09:45:32 BUT ADMIRAL MULLEN JUST MET WITH THE HEADS OF THE MILITARIES LAST 09:45:36 WEEK, I MIGHT ASK HIM FOR A COMMENT. 09:45:38 >> IF YOU COULD JUST BRIEFLY SAY, ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT THAT 09:45:41 NEED IS GOING TO BE FILLED? IT'S JUST TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE 09:45:44 THAT COMMITMENT IS MADE. IT'S SO ESSENTIAL AND THEN NOT 09:45:48 KEPT. >> WE ALL AGREE IT'S 09:45:50 UNACCEPTABLE, IT'S THE TOP PRIORITY THERE AND A TOP 09:45:53 PRIORITY FROM THIS MEETING WITH SOME 20 PLUS TO GO BACK TO THEIR 09:45:57 CAPITALS AND MEET. AND THERE'S A CONFERENCE LATER 09:45:59 THIS MONTH TO FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON THAT. 09:46:01 >> ALL RIGHT. AND THE CHOD. 09:46:03 WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THE CHIEFS OF DEFENSE FOR 09:46:07 THESE COUNTRIES. >> THANK YOU. 09:46:11 SECRETARY GATES, THE MISSILE DEFENSE REVIEW REPORT SAYS IN 09:46:14 CONTRAST TO THE PRACTICE OVER THE LAST DECADE OF FIELDING 09:46:17 MISSILE DEFENSE CAPABILITIES THAT WERE STILL BEING DEVELOPED 09:46:20 AT THE ADMINISTRATION "WILL TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH" BEST 09:46:26 DESCRIBED AS FLY BEFORE YOU WHICH WILL RESULT IN A POSTURE 09:46:30 BASE ON PROVEN TECHNOLOGY IN ORDER TO IMPROVE RELIABILITY, 09:46:37 CONFIDENCE, AND CONTROL. AND THAT'S A WELCOME CHANGE. 09:46:39 WILL WE BE DEPLOYING GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTERS THAT 09:46:42 HAVE BEEN NOT BEEN TESTED AND DEMONSTRATED? 09:46:45 >> WE HAVE DEPLOYED GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTERS AT FT. GREELEY. 09:46:50 WE HAVE A VERY AGGRESSIVE TEST PROGRAM THAT HAS BEEN 09:46:51 SUCCESSFUL. WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE 09:46:56 INTERCEPTORS GIVE US THE CAPABILITY TO DEAL WITH LAUNCHES 09:47:02 FROM EITHER IRAN OR NORTH KOREA. SMALL SCALE THREAT. 09:47:07 THE FACT IS, WE ARE CONTINUING IN ADDITION TO ROBUSTLY FUNDING 09:47:11 INCREASES IN THEATER LEVEL MISSILE DEFENSE. 09:47:18 WE WILL ALSO CONTINUE TO SPEND, WE HAVE IN THIS BUDGET $1.35 09:47:25 BILLION TO CONTINUE THE DEVELOPMENT AND TEST PROGRAM FOR 09:47:28 THE GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTERS. BOTH THE THREE STATES THAT ARE 09:47:32 NOW DEPLOYED, AND THE TWO-STAGE THAT WE WERE GOING TO DEPLOY IN 09:47:36 POLAND. AND SO I THINK WE BOTH FOR 09:47:38 HOMELAND SECURITY AND FOR OUR ALLOYS AND OUR TROOPS IN THE 09:47:43 FIELD, WE HAVE VERY STRONG PROGRAMS GOING FORWARD. 09:47:47 >> THANK YOU, SENATOR McCAIN. >> SECRETARY GATES, DO YOU 09:47:53 BELIEVE THAT THE CHRISTMAS BOMBER SHOULD BE TRIED IN 09:47:55 CIVILIAN COURT OR BY MILITARY COMMISSION? 09:47:58 >> SENATOR, I WOULD DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE PROPER 09:48:02 JURISDICTION FOR SUCH PEOPLE. WHEN YOU FILL OUT YOUR FORM WHEN 09:48:06 WE CONFIRM YOU FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE, YOU SIGN THAT YOU 09:48:09 WOULD GIVE YOUR HONEST AND CANDID OPINION IN RESPONSE TO 09:48:12 QUESTIONS. YOU WANT TO GIVE ME AN OPINION? 09:48:17 >> MY HONEST OPINION IS THAT I THINK THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 09:48:20 IS IN THE BEST POSITION TO JUDGE WHERE THESE PEOPLE GET TRIED. 09:48:25 AFTER ALL, WE HAVE -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 09:48:28 IT WAS REPORTED IN THE MEDIA THAT -- AND I QUOTE, "WHEN 09:48:32 PRESIDENT OBAMA CONVENED HIS NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM ON 09:48:35 JANUARY 5th TO DISCUSS CHRISTMAS INCIDENT, THE DECISION TO CHARGE 09:48:39 THE SUSPECT IN FEDERAL COURT WAS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED. 09:48:43 AND AGAIN." NOBODY PRESENT RAISED OBJECTION. 09:48:48 AND SECRETARY GATES MADE THE POINT THAT EVEN IF ABDULMUTALLAB 09:48:53 HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO MILITARY CUSTODY, IT'S UNLIKELY ANYMORE 09:48:58 INFORMATION COULD HAVE BEEN GLEAMED FROM HIM SINCE "ENHANCED 09:49:03 INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES" HAVE BEEN BANNED BY THE 09:49:05 ADMINISTRATION. IS THIS REPORTED OF YOUR VIEW? 09:49:08 >> WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID WAS I BELIEVED THAT A TEAM OF HIGHLY 09:49:13 EXPERIENCED FBI AND OTHER INTERROGATORS COULD BE AS 09:49:16 EFFECTIVE IN INTERROGATING THE PRISONER AS ANYONE OPERATING 09:49:22 UNDER THE MILITARY FIELD MANUAL. >> SO THE -- THAT'S A DIRECT 09:49:27 CONTRADICTION TO THE PIECE IN "NEWSWEEK" MAGAZINE. 09:49:36 AND SO YOU AGREE WITH THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 09:49:39 INTELLIGENCE BLAIR WHEN HE SAID "WE DID NOT INVOKE THE HIG, 09:49:44 THAT'S THE TRAINED INTERROGATORS IN THIS CASE WE SHOULD'VE. 09:49:47 DO YOU AGREE WITH ADMIRAL BLAIR? >> I THINK THAT -- I THINK WE 09:49:50 DID NOT HAVE THE HIGH LEVEL INTERROGATORS THERE THAT WE NOW 09:49:56 HAVE PROTOCOLS IN PLACE TO ENSURE WOULD BE -- WOULD BE 09:50:00 PRESENT IN SUCH A SITUATION. >> DO YOU AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD 09:50:03 HAVE BEEN THERE? >> YES, SIR. 09:50:06 >> AND DO YOU BELIEVE IT WAS POSSIBLE IN 50 MINUTES TO 09:50:10 EXHAUST THE POSSIBILITIES FOR GETTING -- AND GETTING ALL OF 09:50:14 THE INFORMATION THAT WAS NEEDED FROM THE CHRISTMAS BOMBER? 09:50:19 >> I'M JUST NOT IN A POSITION TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, 09:50:21 SENATOR. >> I SEE. 09:50:23 AGAIN, MEDIA REPORTS STATE THAT YOU THOUGHT SO. 09:50:30 IT IS YOUR VIEW THAT ABSENCE AB ENHANCED INTERROGATION 09:50:34 TECHNIQUES THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY PROVIDES NO VALUE IN 09:50:38 THE INTERROGATION OF A TERRORIST? 09:50:40 >> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. >> WELL, I THANK YOU. 09:50:51 ON THE ISSUE OF THE F-35, TO WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE THE FACT 09:50:55 THAT YOU WERE NOT APPRAISED OF ALL THE MAJOR PROBLEMS 09:50:59 ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGRAM LAST SUMMER WHEN IT SEEMS TO ME YOU 09:51:03 NEEDED TO BE? >> WE HAD NOT YET UNDERTAKEN AT 09:51:07 THAT TIME, SENATOR McCAIN, AN INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS THAT 09:51:17 IS NOW ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ACQUISITION AND REFORM 09:51:21 THAT CAN'T YOU ALL PASSED LAST YEAR. 09:51:24 OUR UNDER SECRETARY FOR ACQUISITION LAUNCHED SUCH AN 09:51:30 EXERCISE. HE HIMSELF SPENT ABOUT TWO WEEKS 09:51:33 FULL TIME LOOKING INTO THE F-35 PROGRAM, AND AS A RESULT OF THE 09:51:40 INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATE AND HIS OWN INVESTIGATION, CAME TO 09:51:44 THE CONCLUSIONS THAT THE PROGRAM REQUIRED RESTRUCTURING. 09:51:50 >> AND CAN YOU GIVE US EITHER VERBALLY OR IN WRITING THE 09:51:55 DELAYS AND COST OVERRUNS THAT WE NOW EXPECT? 09:52:01 >> YES, SIR. I WOULD SAY THAT IN TERMS OF -- 09:52:06 OF DELIVERY, EVEN WITH THE RESTRUCTURE PROGRAM, WE STILL 09:52:10 EXPECT THE TRAINING SQUADRON TO BE AT EGLIN IN 2011 AND WE 09:52:17 EXPECT IOC FOR THE MARINE CORPS IN 2012. 09:52:21 FOR THE AIR FORCE IN 2013 AND THE NAVY IN 2014. 09:52:25 THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2014. THERE WILL BE FEWER DELIVERED 09:52:30 AIRCRAFT AT IOC. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING, 09:52:33 THAT'S THE RESULT OF REDUCING THE PRODUCTION RAMP AS HAS BEEN 09:52:37 RECOMMENDED TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. 09:52:43 >> WELL, IN CONCLUSION, GIVEN YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE MEN 09:52:47 AND WOMEN SERVING IN THE MILITARY AND THE DEFENSE OF THIS 09:52:51 NATION I HOPE WILL YOU COME TO A CONCLUSION AS TO HOW ENEMY 09:52:55 COMBATANTS SHOULD BE TREATED AS FAR AS THEIR TRIALS ARE 09:52:58 CONCERNED AND OUR ABILITY TO ENSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, 09:53:04 ASSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT THEY WILL NOT BE RETURNING TO 09:53:06 THE BATTLEFIELD AND WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE TRIED AND INCARCERATED 09:53:11 IN THE UNITED STATES RATHER THAN GUANTANAMO. 09:53:13 WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR VIEWS ON THAT, BECAUSE I VIEW THAT 09:53:16 CLEARLY IN YOUR AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY. 09:53:20 NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO IS OBVIOUSLY BOTCHED THIS ONE VERY, 09:53:23 VERY BADLY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 09:53:28 >> THANK YOU, SENATOR McCAIN. SENATOR AKAKA? 09:53:31 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. 09:53:33 I WANT TO ADD MY WELCOME TO SECRETARY GATES AND ADMIRAL 09:53:39 MULLEN TO THE COMMITTEE AND FOR PEEG HERE TO DISCUSS THE 2011 09:53:45 DEFENSE BUDGET, AND TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND SERVICE OF 09:53:49 ALL THE MEN AND WOMEN IN OUR ARMED FORCES. 09:53:57 AND ALSO WELCOME MR. HAILE. SECRETARY GATES, YOU HAVE 09:54:06 MENTIONED THAT BEYOND WINNING THE WARS THEMSELVES, THE 09:54:09 TREATMENT OF OUR WOUNDED AND ILL ARE YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITY. 09:54:14 AS A RESULT OF TODAY'S CONTINUING CONFLICTS, THE 09:54:19 PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF THOSE CONFLICTS WITH THE RANKS OF THE 09:54:25 U.S. MILITARY HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE PROFOUND. 09:54:30 SECRETARY GATES, WHAT DO WE NEED TO IMPROVE OUR TREATMENT OF 09:54:37 MENTAL ILLNESS, AND HOW DOES THIS BUDGET ADDRESS THAT? 09:54:42 >> AS ADMIRAL MULLEN MENTIONED IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, THERE 09:54:44 IS OVER $1 BILLION IN THIS BUDGET FOR THE TREATMENT OF PTS 09:54:52 AND TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY. ALL OF THE SERVICES HAVE VERY 09:54:57 EXTENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR DEALING WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. 09:55:02 ALL OF THE LEADERSHIP, I THINK, HAVE WEIGHED IN ON THIS VERY 09:55:07 HEAVILY. I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE TWO 09:55:10 PROBLEMS THAT WE STILL ARE WRESTLING WITH. 09:55:12 ONE IS THE SHORTAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. 09:55:18 WE ARE, AND FRANKLY, WE'VE DISCOVERED IT'S A NATIONAL 09:55:23 SHORTAGE. IT'S NOT JUST THE SHORTAGE IN 09:55:24 THE MILITARY, BECAUSE WE'RE, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, TRYING TO HIRE 09:55:28 THESE PEOPLE, AND WE'VE HIRED A LOT. 09:55:31 I THINK SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 1,000 OR 1,400 OVER THE LAST 09:55:35 18 MONTHS OR SO, BUT WE STILL NEED MORE, AND THE SECOND IS 09:55:39 STILL OVERCOMING THE STIGMA OF SEEKING HELP, OF GETTING OUR 09:55:45 SOLDIERS, BUT I WOULD SAY BOTH OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM AND 09:55:48 THEIR FAMILIES TO SEEK THE PSYCHOLOGICAL HELP THAT IS 09:55:54 AVAILABLE TO THEM, BUT LET ME ASK ADMIRAL MULLEN IF HE'D LIKE 09:55:58 TO ADD A WORD. >> I THINK THE SECRETARY'S 09:56:00 CAPTURED THE TWO BIG ISSUES WE DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE MENTAL 09:56:04 HEALTH PROVIDERS IN RECENT YEARS BUT ARE STILL SHORT. 09:56:07 WE'RE JUST BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND THE REAL IMPACTS OF 09:56:11 TPI AND THEN AT THE OTHER PIECE I THINK THAT, AND I WOULD ASK 09:56:15 FOR YOUR HELP ON THIS IS HOW DO WE WORK WITH OTHER COMMITTEES 09:56:19 HERE, SECRETARY GATES, SECRETARY SHINSEKI HAVE CERTAINLY SET THE 09:56:24 STANDARD SHOULDER-TO-SHOULDER THAT BOTH DEFENSE AND VA NEED TO 09:56:27 WORK THIS TOGETHER, BECAUSE MANY OF THESE PEOPLE TRANSITION 09:56:30 CERTAINLY FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TO VA, AND I REALLY 09:56:33 BELIEVE IT'S GOT TO BE A THREE-PART TEAM INCLUDING 09:56:39 COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. 09:56:40 HOW DO WE ENSURE THOSE WHO SACRIFICE SO MUCH RECEIVE THE 09:56:43 CARE ACROSS THIS ENTIRE CONTINUUM, AND WE UNDERSTAND 09:56:47 THEIR NEED, WHICH CHANGES OVER TIME AND IT'S THOSE WHO SUFFERED 09:56:52 GREATLY IN UNIFORM BUT ALSO FAMILY WHOSE ALSO HAVE BEEN 09:56:54 UNDER GREAT STRESS AS WELL. SO THAT WOULD BE THE THIRD PIECE 09:56:56 THAT I WOULD ADD TO THE SECRETARY'S ANSWER. 09:57:03 >> IEDs REMAIN THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF CASUALTIES IN 09:57:08 AFGHANISTAN, MR. SECRETARY. THE ADMINISTRATION RECENTLY 09:57:13 ANNOUNCED THE DEPLOYMENT OF 30,000 ADDITIONAL U.S. TROOPS TO 09:57:20 AFGHANISTAN. AS A RESULT, MORE OF OUR MEN AND 09:57:22 WOMEN WILL BE EXPOSED AND VULNERABLE TO THIS DEADLY FORM 09:57:25 OF ATTACK. THE JOINT IED DEFEAT 09:57:33 ORGANIZATION WAS CREATED TO LEAD AND COORDINATE DUTY ACTIONS THAT 09:57:42 SUPPORT COMBATANT COMMANDERS EFFORTS TO DEFEAT IEDs AS 09:57:46 WEAPONS OF STRATEGIC INFLUENCE. MR. SECRETARY, WHAT IS YOUR 09:57:49 ASSESSMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS IN PROTECTING OUR TROOPS 09:57:56 AGAINST IEDs AND IF IMPROVEMENT IS NEEDED, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO 09:58:01 IMPROVE THOSE RESULTS? >> SENATOR, I THINK THAT WE HAVE 09:58:08 A NUMBER OF VERY FORWARD LEANING EFFORTS TO TRY AND DEAL WITH THE 09:58:15 CHALLENGE OF IEDs. MY CONCERN A FEW MONTHS AGO WAS 09:58:19 THAT THESE EFFORTS WERE NOT ADEQUATELY INTEGRATED, AND -- 09:58:25 AND PUT TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT WE DERIVE MAXIMUM BENEFIT FROM 09:58:30 THE EFFORTS THAT WE HAD UNDER WAY. 09:58:32 I ASKED THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION 09:58:37 TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS AS WELL AS GENERAL J. PAXTON TO CO-CHAIR 09:58:45 A SHORT-TERM EFFORT TO SEE WHAT MORE WE COULD DO, BOTH IN TERMS 09:58:49 OF BETTER STRUCTURE FOR HOW WE DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM, BUT ALSO 09:58:53 IF THERE WERE SOME SPECIFIC AREAS WHERE ADDITIONAL ATTENTION 09:58:57 WAS NEEDED. THEY'VE BROUGHT TO THE ME SOME 09:59:00 RECOMMENDATIONS IN TERMS OF SIGNIFICANT ENHANCEMENTS FOR 10:00:00 GATES: AFGHANISTAN YET. SO THIS IS A DYNAMIC PROCESS, 10:00:02 AND I WOULD SAY TO YOU WE HAVE A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES UNDER WAY 10:00:08 TO TIM PROVE THE STRONG WORK THAT WAS ALREADY BEING DONE, 10:00:12 BECAUSE THIS ABSOLUTELY THE WORST KILLER AND MAIMER OF OUR 10:00:18 TROOPS, AND WE ARE, WITH YOUR SUPPORT, SPARING NO EXPENSE AND 10:00:22 NO EFFORT TO TRY AND REDUCE THOSE CASUALTIES. 10:00:24 THE M-WRAPS HAVE MADE A HUGE DIFFERENCE, BUT THE ENEMY IS -- 10:00:32 IS A THINKING ENEMY, AND THEY CHANGE THEIR TACTICS AND THEIR 10:00:36 STRUCTURES. ANOTHER THING WE'RE DOING IS A 10:00:40 VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE IN AFGHANISTAN OF THESE IEDs ARE 10:00:45 MADE FROM FERTILIZER AMMONIUM NITRITE, WHICH IS ILLEGAL IN 10:00:50 AFGHANISTAN. NOW WE'RE ESTABLISHING AN EFFORT 10:00:53 TO TRY AND HIT THE SMUGGLING NETWORKS THAT BRING THIS 10:00:57 AMMONIUM NITRATE INTO BE USED FOR THESE IEDs, BUT WE HAVE A 10:01:04 LOT OF DIFFERENT EFFORTS GOING ON, AND IF THE COMMITTEE IS 10:01:07 INTERESTED, I'D BE HAPPY TOP HAVE SECRETARY CARTER AND 10:01:09 GENERAL PAXTON COME UP AND BRIEF ON THEIR ENTVERS. 10:01:12 >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SENATOR. 10:01:16 >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LET ME START BY SAYING I 10:01:19 DISAGREE WITH SENATOR McCAIN ON HIS STATEMENTS ON THE C-17 AND 10:01:25 DISAGREE ON HIS STATEMENTS IN THIS, PAST STATEMENTS ON THE 10:01:29 F-22. YOU KNOW, IT CONCERNS ME THAT WE 10:01:32 KEEP HEARING, WELL, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE MILITARY 10:01:34 DOESN'T WANT, THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR AND ALL THAT. 10:01:36 THEN I GO OVER THERE, AND THAT'S NOT THEIR ATTITUDE AT ALL. 10:01:40 THEY HAVE NEEDS OVER THERE. OUR LIFT CAPACITY IS IN DIRE 10:01:45 STRAITS. WE'RE STILL USING THOSE OLD BEAT 10:01:47 UP C-130 E MODELS THAT WE KEEP LOSING ENGINES ON. 10:01:53 ACTUALLY LOST TWO ENGINES ON ONE NOT TOO LONG AGO WHEN I WAS OVER 10:01:57 THERE, AND THE STATE-OF-THE-ART IS STILL THERE IN THE C-17s AND 10:02:02 I THINK WE HAVE TO DO SURGERY ON THAT AND SOME OF THE OTHER THING 10:02:05 ON THIS BUDGET WHEN THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE GETS 10:02:09 TOGETHER. NOW, ON THE F-22, JUST YESTERDAY 10:02:12 WE READ ABOUT THE T-50, THAT THEY'RE COMING OUT WITH. 10:02:15 A FIFTH GENERATION THAT THE RUSSIANS HAVE. 10:02:18 YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AT ALL AS CONFIDENT AS EVERYONE ELSE IS 10:02:22 THAT OUR F-35s ARE GOING TO BE ONLINE WHEN WE SAY. 10:02:27 AS SENATOR McCAIN JUST SAID. THAT WE HAVE COST OVERRUNS, 10:02:31 PROBLEMS AND JUST RECENTLY HAVE SURFACED. 10:02:34 I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS. AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE 10:02:39 DOWN 187 F-22s, AND I THINK OUT OF THAT, WHAT, ONLY 120 ARE 10:02:45 ACTUALLY COMBAT READY AND USED FOR COMBAT, AND YET AS I READ 10:02:49 THIS ARTICLE IN THE T-50, THEY'RE STARTING TO CRANK THESE 10:02:53 THINGS OUT, AND INDIA, I UNDERSTAND, TALKING ABOUT BUYING 10:02:57 200 OF THEM. WHO KNOWS WHO ELSE IS GOING TO 10:02:59 BE BUYING THEM. SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IT, AND 10:03:02 I GUESS IT GOES BEYOND JUST THAT. 10:03:05 I LOOK AT OUR COMMITTEE, THE SENATE ARMS SERVICES COMMITTEE. 10:03:09 NOW, ON THESE TWO VEHICLES I MENTIONED, THE F-22 AND C-17, I 10:03:14 DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THAT FIGHT. NO PROCK ALLINTEREST THERE'S, 10:03:18 BUT IT'S THE CAPABILITY WE'RE GOING TO NEED AND I LOOK AND SEE 10:03:21 AND REMEMBER SO WELL TESTIMONY THAT OUR DEFENSE FOR 100 YEARS 10:03:27 AVERAGES 5.7% OF GDP, IT'S NOW DOWN TO 3.7 AND AS YOU PROJECTED 10:03:32 BY THOSE FIGURES THAT I'M GETTING, IT WILL GO DOWN TO 3% 10:03:35 BY 2019. THIS IS WHAT REALLY CONCERNS ME, 10:03:41 IS WE'RE JUST NOT GOING THE JOB THAT WE NEED TO BE DOING TO 10:03:44 DEFEND AMERICA. IF YOU CONSIDER THAT THE NUMBER 10:03:47 ONE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT WHICH I HAPPEN TO. 10:03:49 I DO AGREE WITH SENATOR McCAIN AND HIS CONCERN OVER PULLING THE 10:03:53 RUG OUT FROM UNDER EASTERN EUROPE ON THE THIRD SITE, AND 10:04:00 I'VE READ SOMETHING YESTERDAY THAT RUSSIA DOESN'T WANT US TO 10:04:03 HAVE ANY GROUND BASE CAPABILITY. I DON'T KNOW. 10:04:05 THE FIRST THING I'D ASK, MR. SECRETARY, AND I SHOULD KNOW 10:04:08 THIS BUT I DON'T. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING 10:04:11 THE CAPABILITY OF THE SM-3 AND GETTING THAT WORKING, WHERE 10:04:15 WOULD IT BE USED? I MEAN, IS THIS EGYPT, OR WHERE 10:04:20 WOULD WE HAVE THIS CAPABILITY? >> WELL, IN THE NIRNL PHASE IT 10:04:23 WOULD BE BASED ON SHIPS, BUT WE HAVE MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR A 10:04:28 LAND-BASED STANDARD MISSILE, AND SO IT WOULD BE DEPLOYED IN 10:04:34 EUROPE, AND PERHAPS ELSEWHERE, DEPENDING ON THE AGREEMENTS THAT 10:04:38 WE REACHED WITH OTHER COUNTRIES. >> YOU DON'T THINK YOU'LL HAVE 10:04:42 THE, A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM IN THAT WE NEGOTIATED AND WE 10:04:44 WENT OVER THERE AND, WITH THE CZECH REPUBLIC FOR ITS RADAR AND 10:04:50 POLAND FOR THE SITE OF THE GROUND BASE INTERCEPTOR? 10:04:54 AND THEN CHANGED OUR MINDS? IS THAT GOING TO CREATE A LITTLE 10:04:58 PROBLEM IN GETTING -- OR HAVE YOU ALREADY INITIATED A 10:05:01 DISCUSSION WITH ANY OF THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES TO HAVE THAT 10:05:06 CAPABILITY THERE? >> YES AND REACHED AGREEMENTS 10:05:10 WITH POLS ALREADY TO MOVE ADVANCED PATRIOTS INTO POLAND. 10:05:15 >> THAT'S A DIFFERENT CAPABILITY THAN GETTING UP TO WHAT WE WERE 10:05:19 TALKING ABOUT BEFORE. >> AS I SAY, I DON'T THINK WE'LL 10:05:20 HAVE A PROBLEM. >> WELL, OKAY. 10:05:23 ALL RIGHT. WELL, ARMY MODERNIZATION, I'VE 10:05:25 BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, OUR 10:05:33 CAPABILITY ON ENLOS CANNON. FIRST A CRUSADER. 10:05:39 THEN THAT WAS AXED BY THE REPUBLICANS, BY PRESIDENT BUSH. 10:05:42 RIGHT WHEN WE WERE IN NEGOTIATIONS I MIGHT ADD IN THE 10:05:46 SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE PUTTING TOGETHER A PROGRAM. 10:05:48 SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. NOW WE DO HAVE THE PEN PROGRAM, 10:05:52 GOOD ON THE PALLET END. I GOT TO TELL YOU, THE SAME 10:05:55 TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY HAD WHEN I WAS IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 10:05:58 I MEAN, GETTING OUT AND SO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. 10:06:01 AND I'M CONCERNED THAT GENERAL CASEY AND GENERAL CORELLI BOTH 10:06:09 STATED MANY TIMES WE'RE BURNING UP EQUIPMENT AS SOON AS THEY CAN 10:06:12 BE PROCURED, YET THE ARMY PROCUREMENT FUNDING DECREASED IN 10:06:16 THIS BUDGET BY $31 BILLION FROM FY 08 TO FY 10. 10:06:22 IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? >> I THINK A GOOD PART OF THAT 10:06:26 WAS FOR THE ARMY'S FUTURE COMBAT VEHICLE, AND AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE 10:06:32 RESTRUCTURING THAT PROGRAM, AND I THINK THAT YOU'LL SEE 10:06:35 SIGNIFICANT INCREASE WHEN THE ARMY MOVES INTO PRODUCTION OF 10:06:37 THAT VEHICLE. >> WELL, I HOPE THAT'S THE CASE, 10:06:43 AND I HOPE THAT WE'RE HERE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT AS A REALITY. 10:06:48 MY TIME EXPIRED, BUT ONE LAST THING. 10:06:51 I'VE JUST, ONE LAST QUESTION, IF I COULD, MR. CHAIRMAN. 10:06:55 ON THE 1206, 1207, 1208 AND SO FORTH, THIS 1206 IS FINE. 10:07:01 I APPRECIATE THE FACT WE'VE ENHANCED THAT PROGRAM AND SOME 10:07:03 OF THE OTHER. THE 1207, THAT'S THE CIVILIAN TO 10:07:07 CIVILIAN. THAT NOW IS GOING TO GO BACK TO 10:07:09 THE STATE DEPARTMENT, AND ONE OF THE ORIGINAL REASONS THAT WE 10:07:11 WANTED TO HAVE THIS IN THE D.O.D. WAS THE TIMING. 10:07:16 SO THAT WHEN A DECISION IS MADE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET IT DONE. 10:07:19 DO YOU THINK THAT'S A GOOD MOVE? OR DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO 10:07:23 REVERSE THAT ON TERMS OF THE 1207 AND THE TRAINER EQUIP 10:07:26 PROGRAM TO BRING IT BACK THE WAY IT IS TODAY? 10:07:31 >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, SENATOR, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 10:07:34 SUPPORT AND HELP ON 120 OF, 1207, 1208, BUT I THINK YOU 10:07:39 KNOW, WHEN I TESTIFIED HERE LAST YEAR, THE PLAN WAS TO BEGIN 10:07:43 TRANSFERRING THE 1207 MONEY TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT. 10:07:47 I THINK THE PLAN YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU ESSENTIALLY SIMPLY 10:07:51 ACCELERATES THAT PROCESS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 10:07:55 >> THANK YOU, SENATOR INHOFE. SENATOR BEN NELSON. 10:07:58 >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND LET ME ADD MY APPRECIATION TO 10:08:02 YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES FOR YOUR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE. 10:08:07 I'VE LONG BEEN AN ADVOCATE FOR BENCHMARKS OR MEASURES OF 10:08:11 PROGRESS, AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DO SO OBJECTIVELY. 10:08:15 SO WE CAN GAUGE OUR EFFORTS IN BOTH AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. 10:08:20 AND I KNOW THIS ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS OUR NATO ALLIES ARE 10:08:24 COMMITTED TO OBJECTIVE BENCHMARKS FOR MEASUREMENT, AND 10:08:28 WE'VE DONE SO WITH PAST STRATEGIES AND ALL TALKED ABOUT 10:08:31 THIS MANY TIME. MOST RECENTLY IN DECEMBER ABOUT 10:08:34 BOTH AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. DURING THAT HEARING IN DECEMBER 10:08:38 IT WAS NOTED THAT MEASURES ARE PROGRESS WERE BEING USED AND 10:08:41 EVALUATED, AND I THOUGHT AT THAT TIME THAT THOSE BENCHMARKS WOULD 10:08:45 BE FORTHCOMING TO OUR COMMITTEE, BUT AT LEAST I HAVE YET TO SEE 10:08:50 THEM, AND IT SEEMS TO ME ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TIMES TO 10:08:54 INFORM THE PROCESS IS AT THE VERY ONSET OF ANY CHANGE. 10:09:00 AND AS THIS MISSION CHANGES COURSE, SO OBVIOUSLY MUST THE 10:09:02 WAY IN WHICH WE MEASURE EFFORTS, THAT WILL CHANGE AS WELL. 10:09:09 HAVE COMPREHENSIVE AND FINAL BENCHMARKS OR MEASURES OF 10:09:14 PROGRESS BEEN DEVELOPED TO REFLECT THIS NEW STRATEGY? 10:09:17 AND IF SO, WHEN WILL THESE BE MADE TO THE COMMITTEES? 10:09:20 TO THE COMMITTEE? SECRETARY GATES? 10:09:22 >> I THINK THEY HAVE, AND I FRANKLY THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD 10:09:24 ALREADY BEEN PROVIDE TO THE COMMITTEE AND I'LL CHECK ON IT 10:09:29 AFTER THE HEARING. >> OKAY. 10:09:30 THANK YOU. COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT 10:09:32 ABOUT SOME OF THE AREAS OF MEASUREMENT THAT WOULD BE IN 10:09:38 THESE MEASURES OF PROGRESS? >> WELL, I THINK A COUPLE THAT 10:09:43 ARE PRETTY OBVIOUS ARE THE AFGHANS MEETING THEIR 10:09:49 RECRUITMENT GOALS FOR THE AFGHAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCES. 10:09:53 ARE THEY MEETING THEIR GOALS IN TERMS OF LIMITING FRUITION? 10:09:59 HOW MANY ARE THEY MEETING THE NUMBER OF UNITS BEING FIELDED 10:10:01 THAT ARE IN THE PLAN? ARE THEY BENCHMARKS -- THERE ARE 10:10:09 BENCHMARKS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR TRAINING. 10:10:11 SO I THINK THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT 10:10:14 TO THE SECURITY FORCES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 10:10:17 >> DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE MIGHT RELATE TO OUR MEASURES OF 10:10:21 PROGRESS WITH RESPECT TO OUR PARTICULAR EFFORTS? 10:10:26 >> WELL, I THINK IN SOME RESPECTS THE PRESIDENT'S MADE 10:10:33 SOME, MADE HIS EXPECTATIONS PRETTY CLEAR. 10:10:36 HE HAS SOME CLEAR EXPECTATIONS AND IS BENCHMARKING US ON HOW 10:10:41 FAST WE CAN GET 30,000 TROOPS INTO AFGHANISTAN. 10:10:45 AND WATCHING THAT CAREFULLY. I THINK HE HAS CLEARLY SET A 10:10:50 MARKER IN TERMS OF BEGINNING TO TRANSFER SECURITY AUTHORITY TO 10:10:57 THE AFGHANS BEGINNING IN JULY '11. 10:11:03 THAT'S A CLEAR BENCHMARK THAT MUST BE MET. 10:11:06 SO I THINK WE DO HAVE SOME. ANOTHER FOR US IS THE NUMBER OF 10:11:09 CIVILIANS WE'RE GETTING INTO AFGHANISTAN FROM THE STATE 10:11:12 DEPARTMENT, AID AND OTHER AGENCIES. 10:11:15 >> ARE YOU WORKING WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT ON, JOINTLY IN 10:11:18 THAT EFFORT? I KNOW THEY'VE SET MEASURES OF 10:11:20 PROGRESS OF THEIR OWN. >> ABSOLUTELY. 10:11:24 THIS IS AS INTEGRATED AND EFFORT AS I'VE EVER SEEN THE U.S. 10:11:27 GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKE. >> THANK YOU. 10:11:31 I'D LIKE TO TALK TO YOU JUST A SECRETARY ABOUT OUR CONTRACTOR 10:11:36 CONVERSION EFFORTS. YOU ANNOUNCED IN THE SPRING OF 10:11:38 '09 THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD SCALE BACK THE ROLE OF 10:11:45 CONTRACTORS AND FOR MY SENSE, TOO MANY YEARS WE WERE 10:11:48 OUTFORCING TOO MUCH WITH PERHAPS TOO LITTLE EMPHASIS ON WHY AND 10:11:50 WHETHER IT WAS JUSTIFY, BUT REGARDLESS OF THE MAKEUP, 10:11:58 OUTSOURCING OR INSOURCING HAS TO MAKE SENSE AND THE BEST 10:12:01 UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES BOTH MONEY AND PEOPLE. 10:12:04 IS THERE IN PLACE A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE RIGHT MIX OF 10:12:08 CONTRACTOR GOVERNMENT CIVILIAN AND MILITARY PERSONNEL, AND WHAT 10:12:11 ARE WE DOING TO EXECUTE SUCH A PLAN? 10:12:14 >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, OUR GOAL IS TO TAKE THE NUMBER OF 10:12:18 CONTRACTORS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE 10:12:21 WORK FORCE BACK TO WHERE IT WAS PRIOR TO 9/11, WHICH WOULD MEAN 10:12:27 TAKING IT FROM 39% TO 26%. THE PLAN -- FIRST OF ALL, I 10:12:38 THINK ONE OF THE EFFECTS OF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN IRAQ IN 10:12:41 PARTICULAR HAS BEEN THE REVIVAL OF ACQUISITION IN A COUPLE OF 10:12:45 THE SERVICES WHERE THAT IS A CAREER FIELD HAD WITHERED, AND I 10:12:51 THINK THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE ARMY, WHERE A NUMBER OF 10:12:56 MEASURES INCLUDING THE ALLOCATION OF GENERAL OFFICER 10:12:59 POSITIONS AND SO ON TO REVIVE THAT CAREER FIELD IS AN 10:13:04 ATTRACTIVE CAREER FIELD. SOME OTHER SERVICES HAVE DONE 10:13:06 BETTER. I THINK THAT UNDERSECRETARY 10:13:11 CARTER HAS A CLEAR IDEA OF THE RIGHT MIX BETWEEN CONTRACTORS 10:13:15 AND CIVILIANS, BUT I THINK THAT THE FIRST PLACE WE NEED TO LOOK 10:13:22 IS THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE CONTRACTORS EVALUATING 10:13:24 CONTRACTORS. AND SO I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST 10:13:29 AREA AS WE MAKE THESE CONVERSIONS, WHICH I MIGHT ADD 10:13:33 ARE ON TRACK ONE YEAR IN. >> MY TIME'S EXPIRED. 10:13:38 THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> JUST TO IMPLEMENT THAT POINT, 10:13:43 OF SENATOR NELSON. I BELIEVE IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET 10:13:46 PROPOSAL YOU ARE REQUESTING PROPOSING MAYBE 10,000 10:13:53 CONTRACTOR JOBS BE ELIMINATED AND CHANGED OVER TO EMPLOYEES OF 10:14:00 THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER. 10:14:02 BUT IS THAT NOT TRUE? IT'S IN THE BUDGET? 10:14:05 >> OUR GOAL IS 20,000. TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF 10:14:10 ACQUISITION PROFESSIONALS FROM 127,000 TO 147,000. 10:14:15 10,000 OF THOSE WILL BE THE CONVERSION OF CONTRACTOR JOBS TO 10:14:19 CIVIL SERVICE JOBS. ANOTHER 10,000 WILL BE NEW 10:14:22 HIRES. >> AND THAT'S IN THIS YEAR'S 10:14:24 BUDGET. IS THAT CORRECT? 10:14:25 >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I JUST WANT TO IMPLEMENT -- 10:14:29 JUST TO CLARIFY THAT POINT. >> 0,000 TOTAL IS OVER 10 TO 14, 10:14:34 SENATOR LEVIN. >> OVER FOUR YEARS. 10:14:36 >> RIGHT. >> HOW MANY IN THIS YEAR'S 10:14:37 BUDGET? >> FOR THE TOTAL IS ABOUT 6,000 10:14:40 INCLUDING ACQUISITION AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 10:14:42 I'LL HAVE TO GET YOU THE NUMBERS SPECIFICALLY. 10:14:45 >> AND CLARIFY THE BENCHMARK OF SENATOR NELSON, VERY PERSISTENT 10:14:48 ON FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYBODY IN THE NATION, THE ONLY THING 10:14:52 THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IS A DRAFT 10:14:56 SET OF BENCHMARKS, AND THEY WERE CLASSIFIED. 10:14:59 SO HE IS RIGHT. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED BENCHMARKS, 10:15:02 ALTHOUGH WE WERE PROMISED THEM AND WE NEED BOTH THE BENCHMARKS 10:15:06 ALSO IN AN UNCLASSIFIED WAY. >> THE BENCHMARKS I WAS TALKING 10:15:10 ABOUT WHERE INNER AGENCY BENCHMARKS AY GREED AND THOSE 10:15:12 WERE THE ONES I THOUGHT HAD BEEN DELIVERED AND I'LL PURSUE THAT. 10:15:16 AFTER THE HEARING. >> THANK YOU. 10:15:18 SENATOR SESSIONS? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND 10:15:22 FOR YOUR GOOD LEADERSHIP, YOUR EXCELLENT CHAIRMAN. 10:15:25 WE DO HAVE A LOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY. 10:15:29 TALKING ABOUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET. 10:15:31 THE QUAD DRINIAL DEFENSE REVIEW, TWO WARS, THE MISSILE DEFENSE 10:15:35 REPORT, DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL. TERRORIST TRIALS AND I GUESS I 10:15:40 WOULD JUST SAY, I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO IT ALL JUSTICE TODAY. 10:15:44 I HOPE WE'LL HAVE MORE HEARINGS AS WE GO FORWARD, AND SOME OF 10:15:48 THEM WE NEED AT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AND CHAIRMAN OF THE 10:15:50 JOINT CHIEFS. JUST BRIEFLY, MR. SECRETARY, ON 10:15:55 THE CHRISTMAS DAY BOMBER, I SAW YOUR FORMER CLEAR, THE GENERAL 10:16:05 ON THE TELEVISION POINTING OUT, YES, THEY TRIED MOUSSAOUI IN A 10:16:11 FEDERAL COURT. HE TRIED THE CASE AS A FEDERAL 10:16:14 JUDGE AT THE TIME, BUT HE PLED GUILTY, AND THE SENTENCING PHASE 10:16:17 TOOK A YEAR. HE SAID IT WAS MADE INTO A 10:16:22 CIRCUS, AND HE POINTED OUT THAT GUANTANAMO WAS CREATED FOR THE 10:16:28 PURPOSE OF THESE KIND OF TRIALS, AND WHEN A PERSON LIKE THE 10:16:31 CHRISTMAS DAY BOMBER LEAVES YEMEN ARMED WITH A BOMB FROM AL 10:16:36 QAEDA ON DIRECTIONS OF AL QAEDA AND FLIES INTO THE UNITED 10:16:41 STATES, I SUGGEST HE'S AN UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT AND 10:16:46 PERFECTLY SUITED FOR DETENTION AND TRIAL, IF NEED BE A TRIAL, 10:16:51 IN MILITARY CUSTODY, AND I THINK THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 10:16:59 SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THOSE THING BECAUSE THE INTELLIGENCE THAT 10:17:01 COULD BE GATHERED FROM A PROLONGED INTERROGATION BY 10:17:05 PEOPLE KNOWLEDGEABLE IN YEMEN COULD HAVE ADDED GREATLY TO 10:17:08 THIS. NOW HE'S BEEN ADVISED HE HAS A 10:17:10 RIGHT TO A LAWYER. HE'S NO LONGER GOING TO 10:17:14 COOPERATE OR TALK. HE'S GOING TO BE ENTITLED TO A 10:17:17 SPEEDY TRIAL AND I HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT. 10:17:19 I JUST HOPE YOU WILL BE ALERT TO THAT AS GOES BY, AND I THINK THE 10:17:23 MILITARY HAS A REAL RESPONSIBILITY. 10:17:26 YOU KNOW, I JUST WOULD BRIEFLY SAY THAT I'VE COME TO UNDERSTAND 10:17:33 AND FEEL MORE STRONGLY ABOUT THE CONCERNS SENATOR McCAIN HAS 10:17:37 ABOUT SETTING AN ABSOLUTE DATE FOR LEAVING AND BEGINNING TO 10:17:42 LEAVE IN 2011. I MEAN, WE'LL HARDLY HAVE OUR 10:17:45 TROOPS IN PLACE BY THEN. THE INSURGENT PLACED BY THEN, 10:17:50 AND WE SEE THINGS LIKE THE, PRESIDENT KARZAI BEGINNING TO 10:17:56 TALK TO THE TALIBAN. MAKES YOU WONDER IF HE'S LOOKING 10:17:59 BEYOND OUR DEPARTURE TODAY. I WORRY ABOUT THAT. 10:18:07 MR. SECRETARY, YOU TALK ABOUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL. 10:18:10 I'VE BEEN BAFFLED A BIT BY THAT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN YOU'RE 10:18:14 IN A WAR, A SUPPLEMENTAL IS AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE 10:18:18 FUNDING FOR THAT, AND TO TRY TO FORCE INTO THE BASELINE BUDGET 10:18:26 FUNDING SPECIFICALLY FOR THESE TWO OPERATIONS WITH A COUPLE 10:18:32 HUNDRED THOUSAND TROOPS DEPLOYED IS NOT A GOOD POLICY. 10:18:35 WHY DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD DO THIS ONLY WITH THE BASELINE 10:18:39 BUDGET? >> WELL, I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT 10:18:42 BELIEVE WE SHOULD DO IT WITH THE BASELINE BUDGET. 10:18:45 I THINK THAT THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE OVERSEAS 10:18:50 CONTINGENCY OPERATION FUNDING BUDGET IS, I THINK THAT IT IS 10:18:55 ACTUALLY IN RESPONSE TO CONSIDERABLE PRESSURE FROM THE 10:18:57 CONGRESS FOR GREATER -- >> I KNOW YOU HAVE GOTTEN 10:19:02 PRESSURE FROM THE CONGRESS ON THAT. 10:19:03 >> GREATER PREDICTABILITY -- >> BUT NOT ME. 10:19:06 >> GREATER PREDICTABLE ABOUT HOW MUCH IS GOING TO BE SPENT IN 10:19:10 THESE WARS, AND SO THAT THE, THOSE BUDGETS CAN BE CONSIDERED 10:19:15 WITH THE FRAMEWORK OF THE NORMAL CONSIDERATION OF THE BUDGET. 10:19:18 SO I THINK THAT IT'S -- IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A PART OF THE BASE 10:19:21 BUDGET, BUT IT IS PROVIDED IN ADVANCE IN A WAY THAT GIVES THE 10:19:26 CONGRESS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESTRU IN THE SAME WAY OR IT 10:19:31 REVIEWS THE REST OF THE BUDGET. >> WELL, I'M NOT SURE. 10:19:34 IT SEEMS WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE SUPPLEMENTAL AS WELL, 10:19:38 BUT I GUESS IN A WAY YOU'RE CREATING A DISCREET FUNDING 10:19:42 PROGRAM THAT WE COULD REVIEW AND MAYBE THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE 10:19:46 ACCEPTABLE. WITH REGARD TO OUR PROCUREMENT 10:19:50 OF MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, KNOW THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 10:19:57 ADMIRAL MULLEN HARKS FOCUSED ON LIFE CYCLE COST, AND I GUESS YOU 10:20:01 WOULD AGREE THAT THINGS SUCH AS FUEL AND MAINTENANCE ARE ON PART 10:20:09 OF FACT TO EVALUATE, IF WE'RE GOING TO EVALUATE THE COST OF A 10:20:13 WEAPON SYSTEM OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS? 10:20:15 >> YES, SIR. >> I KNOW WE DID THAT ON THE 10:20:17 TANKER AIRCRAFT AND IN FACT ON FUEL AND THAT SORT OF THING ARE 10:20:25 COUNTED AS EVALUATING THAT AIRCRAFT. 10:20:29 ARE YOU -- SHOULD THAT BE APPLIED TO A PROCUREMENT PROGRAM 10:20:35 LIKE THE COMBAT SHIP THAT THE COST OF FUEL, SHOULD THAT BE 10:20:39 ACCOUNTED FOR? >> I'VE LONG BEEN CONCERNED 10:20:40 ABOUT LIFE CYCLE COSTS. I THINK SENATOR SESSIONS YOU 10:20:46 KNOW THAT, LONG BEFORE NOW, AND THE SECRETARY POINTED OUT, AND I 10:20:51 THINK VERY IMPORTANTLY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT, THAT THE 10:20:55 PROGRAMS THAT HE CUT LAST YEAR ACTUALLY HAD SOME LIFE CYCLE 10:21:00 VALUE FOCUSED ON ABOUT $330 BILLION. 10:21:03 AS FAR AS WHAT'S IN AN RFP AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE FOCUSED 10:21:09 ON, THAT'S SOMETHING I REALLY CAN'T COMMENT ON -- 10:21:12 >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW. WE'VE GOT AN RFN LA TORAL 10:21:17 COMBATSHIP THAT I'M TOLD DOES NOT HAVE ANY FACTOR FOR FUEL 10:21:20 COST. >> BUT YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT IT 10:21:22 THAN I DO. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. 10:21:23 >> WELL, IF THAT'S SO, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO LOOK AT IT AND ASK 10:21:29 QUESTIONS IF THAT'S A WISE DECISION? 10:21:31 >> THIS -- AGAIN, AS I SAID, I'VE BEEN LONG TIME I'VE BEEN 10:21:35 CONCERNED ABOUT LIFE CYCLE COSTS. 10:21:39 ACTUALLY ONE OF THE, I THINK, WEAKNESSES OF THE ACQUISITION 10:21:43 SYSTEM IS TYPICALLY THE LINE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT. 10:21:46 THE UNIFORMED SIDE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT. 10:21:49 SO I'M NOT INVOLVED FROM THAT POINT IN VIEW AND WOULD UNDER 10:21:52 ACTUALLY NO CIRCUMSTANCES SEE AN RFP OR LOOK AT ITS EVALUATION 10:21:57 CRITERIA IN WHAT I'M DOING RIGHT NOW. 10:22:01 >> WELL I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD BE, YOUR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY 10:22:05 AS PART OF PROCUREMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT TO SEE AT LEAST BASIC 10:22:10 REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET, AND I THINK I HEAR YOU SAY THAT LIFE 10:22:13 CYCLE COSTS, WHICH CERTAINLY WOULD INCLUDE FUEL, SHOULD BE A 10:22:17 FACTOR IN EVALUATION OF THE BIDS OR THE PROPOSALS? 10:22:20 WOULDN'T IT? >> I'VE SAID LIFE CYCLE COSTS 10:22:25 ARE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR AND HAVE BEEN FOR A LONG TIME. 10:22:27 >> WE'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW-UP ON THAT. 10:22:29 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. 10:22:31 >> THANK YOU MUCH. SENATOR UDALL IS NEXT. 10:22:39 >> THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. 10:22:41 SECRETARY GATES, WE HAVE A PROPOSAL FROM THE PRESIDENT WHEN 10:22:43 I FULLY SUPPORT TO FREEZE NON-DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, 10:22:47 EXCUSE ME, FOR NON-DEFENSE PROGRAMS IN FISCAL YEAR 2011. 10:22:51 I THINK WE'RE GOING FACE TIGHTER BUDGETS IN FUTURE YEARS AND MAY 10:22:54 HAVE THE POTENTIAL NEED TO TRIM PENTAGON BUDGETS AS WELL. 10:22:59 COULD YOU TALK ABOUT HOW YOU'RE POSTURES THE D.O.D. TO BE ABLE 10:23:04 TO REACT TO THAT POTENTIAL? >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK 10:23:07 THAT SITUATION OUT THERE IN THE WORLD DOESN'T CHANGE, AND THE 10:23:17 WORLD IS BECOMING MORE COMPLEX, AND I WOULD SAY MORE DANGEROUS 10:23:21 RATHER THAN LESS SO. AND I THINK THAT AS PEOPLE THINK 10:23:24 ABOUT WHERE WE ARE, THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THE DEFICIT, 10:23:31 AND THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CERTAINLY SPENDS A LOT OF MONEY. 10:23:34 BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE, WHERE THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IS TODAY, 10:23:42 IT'S VERY MUCH WITH HISTORICAL NORMS IN TERMS OF BOTH GEP AND A 10:23:48 PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE SPENDING. 10:23:51 THAT SAID, I WOULD TELL THAW IF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 10:23:56 RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN ITS BUDGET, THAT WE WOULD 10:24:00 HAVE TO SACRIFICE FORCE STRUCTURE. 10:24:03 WE CANNOT DO IT ANY OTHER WAY, AND SO THE RESULT OF THAT WOULD 10:24:06 BE A REDUCTION IN MILITARY CAPABILITY AND A REDUCTION IN 10:24:11 OUR FLEXIBILITY. F. I MIGHT, LET ME THANK YOU FOR 10:24:17 YOUR FOCUS ON ACQUISITION REFORM. 10:24:19 I WANT TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH SENATOR McCAIN'S REMARKS AND I 10:24:22 HOPE THIS COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT YOU AS YOU 10:24:25 MAKE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS SO THAT WE EXTRACT EVERY PENNY OF 10:24:28 VALUE FROM EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE SPEND, AND, AGAIN, I JUST WANT 10:24:34 TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANT WORK YOU'VE DONE THERE. 10:24:36 LET ME TURN TO AFGHANISTAN. SENATOR SESSIONS EXPRESSED SOME 10:24:41 CONCERN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT THAT YOU MAKE PEACE WITH 10:24:45 YOUR ENEMY, NOT WITH YOUR FRIENDS, AND I'VE BEEN 10:24:48 INTERESTED, ADMIRAL MULLEN, IN THE REINTEGRATION AT THE 10:24:52 LOW-LEVEL TALIBAN PROPOSALS FORTHCOMING. 10:24:54 A RECENT CONFERENCE I BELIEVE IN THE UK, SOME SIGNIFICANT MONIES 10:24:58 PLEDGED. COULD YOU COMMENT ON THOSE PLANS 10:24:59 TO THE EXTENT THAT YOUR COMFORTABLE? 10:25:03 >> THE REINTEGRATION PIECE IS CLEARLY AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF 10:25:08 THIS AND EVERY COMMANDER FEELS THAT WAY, AND VERY SPECIFIC THE 10:25:13 REINTEGRATION IS REALLY BRINGING THOSE WHO ARE LITERALLY THE 10:25:15 FIGHTERS WHO ARE AGAINST US RIGHT NOW BRINGING THEM INTO THE 10:25:21 FOLD, AND, IN FACT, GENERAL McCHRYSTAL IS VERY FOCUSED ON 10:25:23 THAT. WE ARE IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS 10:25:29 STRATEGY, WHICH INCLUDES THAT, AND SO GETTING EVERYBODY ON THE 10:25:33 SAME PAGE FOR EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS AND HOW RAPIDLY IT HAPPENS 10:25:37 OR DOESN'T HAPPEN IS WHERE WE ARE VERY MUCH AT THE BEGINNING, 10:25:40 BUT WE THINK IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART, AND THERE IS NO -- THERE 10:25:44 IS NO VIEW AT THIS POINT THAT IT IS A PANACEA, AND WE JUST -- 10:25:50 BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T SEE THAT MANY AT THIS POINT. 10:25:52 THE OTHER TERM THAT IS USED THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT TO 10:25:55 UNDERSTAND IS THE RECONCILIATION PIECE, WHICH IS A TERM THAT IS 10:25:58 FOCUSED ON, I WOULD CALL, THE SENIOR LEADERSHIP OF THE 10:26:01 TALIBAN, OR THE SENIOR LEADERSHIP OF THE ENEMY. 10:26:03 MUCH MORE COMPLEX AND, AGAIN, PRESIDENT KARZAI MADE IT CLEAR 10:26:10 THAT E WANTS TO GET ON THIS PATH, BUT, AGAIN, IT'S AT THE 10:26:14 BEGINNING, WE'RE AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT PROCESS. 10:26:16 I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE TERMS AND WHAT THEY 10:26:18 MEAN AND ALSO LOOK AT A REALISTIC PACE IN TERMS OF BOTH 10:26:24 EXPECTATIONS AND ACTUALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING. 10:26:27 IN THAT REGARD, WE'RE JUST AT THE BEGINNING. 10:26:29 >> LET ME TURN TO IRAQ. WE HAVE ELECTIONS LOOMING. 10:26:34 THERE'S SOME INCREASE VIOLENCE. DO YOU STILL BELIEVE WE'RE ON 10:26:39 SCHEDULE TO REDEPLOY AS GENERAL ODIERNO PUT IN PLACE? 10:26:46 >> I DO. FOCUSED ON ELECTIONS IN EARLY 10:26:49 MARCH. IT'S THE ELECTIONS AFTER WHICH 10:26:50 WE START COMING DOWN FAIRLY DRAMATICALLY. 10:26:55 100,000, 104,000 TODAY IS WHAT WE HAVE ON THE GROUND AND WE 10:26:57 WILL COME DOWN TO APPROXIMATELY 50,000 BY AUGUST. 10:27:01 IN THAT TIME FRAME, ANOTHER BIG ISSUE IS, THEY WILL BE STANDING 10:27:05 UP A. >> Guest: AND IT WILL TAKE THEM 10:27:07 SEVERAL MONTHS TO DO THAT. SORT OF THE SUMMERTIME TO STAND 10:27:10 UP THIS NEWLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT. 10:27:11 SO IT'S A GREAT TIME OF TRANSITION. 10:27:14 AND GENERAL ODIERNO AS IS AMBASSADOR HILL ON THE CIVILIAN 10:27:18 SIDE VERY FOCUSED ON ALL ASPECTS OF THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW OVERALL 10:27:21 THE INDICATORS ARE POSITIVE. >> I SEE THAT MY TIME'S EXPIRED. 10:27:26 I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR LEAD ESHIP AND FOR THIS 10:27:31 COMPREHENSIVE SET OF STATEMENTS AND FOR A BUDGET SECRETARY 10:27:33 GATES, THAT CLEARLY LEADS US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 10:27:36 THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SENATOR. 10:27:38 SENATOR? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND 10:27:40 MR. SECRETARY, ADMIRAL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING 10:27:43 SERVICE, AND FOR APPEARING TODAY AND RESPONDING TO SOME OF OUR 10:27:49 QUESTIONS. SECRETARY GATES, WHAT I WANTED 10:27:50 TO TAKE UP WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE 10:27:56 BUDGET AND THE QDR IS THE GOING BACK TO 2006 QDR A 10:28:01 RECOMMENDATION IN THERE AS YOU KNOW TO DEVELOP A FOLLOW-ON 10:28:06 BOMBER. YOU'VE MADE IT CLEAR YOU SUPPORT 10:28:08 THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW BOMBER. LAST APRIL OPTED NOT PURSUE A 10:28:13 PROGRAM UNTIL YOU HAD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEED AND 10:28:16 REQUIREMENT OF TECHNOLOGY AS PART OF EFFORT TO BETTER 10:28:20 UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENT FOR A NEW BOMBER I ALSO UNDERSTAND 10:28:22 THAT YOU STOOD UP A TIGER TEAM TO DO AN IN-DEPTH STUDY OF LONG 10:28:26 RANGE STRIKE IN THE NEW QDR, AND IN READING THE NEW QDR ON PAGE 10:28:32 33, IT LOOKS, HOWEVER, LIKE YOU STILL HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION 10:28:36 TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEW BOMBER PROGRAM BUT INSTEAD 10:28:39 COMMISSIONED ANOTHER STUDY. MY QUESTION, WHAT CONCLUSIONS 10:28:41 WERE DRAWN BY THE TIGER TEAM REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 10:28:43 NEW BOMBER? AND ARE THOSE CONCLUSIONS THAT 10:28:48 WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO US, AT LEAST IN WRITING FOR THE RECORD? 10:28:52 >> I WILL GET YOU AN ANSWER FOR THE RECORD ON THAT, SENATOR, BUT 10:28:56 THERE IS, I THINK, $1.7 BILLION IN THE BUDGET FOR NEXT 10:29:03 GENERATION BOMBER, AND LONG RANGE STRIKE. 10:29:06 I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES WE'RE STILL WRESTLING WITH IS, WHAT 10:29:10 KIND OF A BOMBER WOULD WE BE LOOKING FOR? 10:29:15 DO WE WANT A STAND-OFF BOMBER? AN ATTACK BOMBER? 10:29:18 DO WE WANT A MANNED BALMER OR UNMANNED BOMBER OR VARIATIONS, 10:29:23 WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A PLATFORM THAT COULD SERVE BOTH PURPOSES? 10:29:31 AND I THINK WE'RE STILL -- WE'VE STILL GOT A LOT OF LIFE LEFT IN 10:29:36 THE B-52s, AS OLD AS THEY R, AND IN IS MODERNIZATION MONEY FOR 10:29:43 BOTH OF THOSE IN THE BUDGET, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BOMBER 10:29:47 THAT WOULD PROBABLY NOT APPEAR INTO THE FORCE UNTIL THE LATE 10:29:51 '20s, AND SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, LOOKING AHEAD, A 10:29:56 GENERATION, WHAT THE RIGHT CONFIGURATION FOR THAT WOULD BE. 10:30:03 >> THE 2006 QDR SUGGESTED I THINK FIELDING A NEW BOMBER BY 10:30:07 THE YEAR 2018, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS YOU RAISED ABOUT 10:30:11 WHAT TYPE OF BOMBER THAT MIGHT BE, BUT I GUESS -- BY THE WAY, I 10:30:17 THINK THE $1.7 BILLION IS A MULTIYEAR, LIKE A FOUR-YEAR 10:30:21 NUMBER, BUT WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE ANOTHER STUDY? 10:30:24 THE THING HAS BEEN STUDIED AND STUDY AND STUDIED AND ON WHETHER 10:30:28 OR NOT WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON DEVELOPING FOLLOW-ON BOMBER. 10:30:33 WHEN WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT STUDY TO BE COMPLETESED? 10:30:35 >> I HAVE TO GET AN ANSWER FOR THE RECORD. 10:30:37 WHAT THE STUD HEY BEEN UP TO NOW IS WEATHER. 10:30:39 AND NOW THE STUDY IS WHAT? >> THE -- SECRETARY GATES, WITH 10:30:44 REGARD TO THE DEFENSE PROGRAM STRUCTURE SET OUT A NEW QDR FOR 10:30:48 THE AIR FORCE, THE QDR PROPOSES FIVE LONG RANGE STRIKE WINGS 10:30:53 WITH UP TO 96 PRIMARY MISSION AIRCRAFT. 10:30:56 ACCORDING TO THE LATEST AIR FORCE ALMANAC, THEY HAVE 153 10:31:00 BOMBER AIRCRAFT AND I UNDERSTAND SOME OF THESE AIRCRAFT ARE 10:31:03 DEDICATED TO TESTING. OVER 50 FOR TESTING SEEMS LIKE A 10:31:06 LOT. DO YOU PLAN ON RETIRING ANY 10:31:09 BOMBER AIRCRAFT IN THE NEAR FUTURE? 10:31:12 AND I GUESS A FOLLOW-ON QUESTION WHAT ARE THE ASSUMPTIONS 10:31:15 UNDERLYING WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN THE 10:31:19 NUMBER OF BOMBERS? >> CERTAINLY I'M NOT AWARE THAT 10:31:22 WE ARE, ALTHOUGH I CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO CHECK WITH THE 10:31:25 RECORD TO MAKE SURE THAT I'VE GOT THAT RIGHT. 10:31:27 THERE CERTAINLY HASN'T BEEN ANY BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 10:31:30 RETIREMENT OF BOMBERS. AND IF I COULD SPEAK BRIEFLY TO 10:31:34 THE OTHER ISSUE YOU RAISE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S 10:31:36 HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO BUDGETS, IN MY VIEW, IT'S PUT US 10:31:40 ON A PACE WITH A VIEW THAT EVOLVES. 10:31:44 SOME OF THE PREVIOUS LAYDOWNS. 2006 QDR FROM INCREDIBLY 10:31:52 AGGRESSIVE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. PART OF MY ANSWER TO THE 10:31:54 QUESTION OF WHY WE'RE STILL DOING THIS IS BECAUSE THIS IS A 10:31:58 VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM. WE WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. 10:32:01 AND IT HAS A HUGE IMPACT, QUITE FRANKLY, ON THE FUTURE OF THE 10:32:05 AIR FORCE, BECAUSE OF THE CAPABILITY REQUIREMENT, AND I 10:32:08 THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS A PROCESS THAT IS LED BY SECRETARY 10:32:12 GATES TO MOVE US THROUGH A DLIV, DELIVER A PROCESS THAT REALLY 10:32:15 FOCUSES ON GETTING IT RIGHT FOR THE FUTURE. 10:32:18 AND AS HE INDICATED THE PREVIOUS STUDY AS WHETHER OR NOT AND NOW 10:32:25 WE LOOK TO THE FUTURE WHAT IT SHOULD BE. 10:32:27 I'M SUPPORTIVE OF HAS. THESE ARE TOUGH DECISIONS WE 10:32:31 ABSOLUTELY WANT TO GET RIGHT. >> COULD YOU, FOR THE RECORD, 10:32:35 GET TO THAT QUESTION, THOUGH, OF THE NUMBER OF THE 96 BOMBERS 10:32:40 THAT ARE ASSUMED IN THE FIVE WINGS, WITH 153 AIR FORCE 10:32:47 BOMBERS, A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THEM ALLOCATED TO TESTING, BUT 10:32:51 THAT DOES SEEM LIKE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER. 10:32:53 WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY PLAN TO RETIRE AND ANY ASSUMPTIONS 10:32:58 UNDERLYING THAT WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL 10:33:01 REDUCTION NUMBER OF BOMBERS? >> FOR THE RECORD, I'LL SUPPLY 10:33:05 IT. A LOT WOULD BE TRAINING. 10:33:06 TALKING PRIMARY AIRCRAFT, CODED AIRCRAFT. 10:33:09 A NUMBER OF DESIGNATED TESTING AS YOU SAY BUT WE'LL SUPPLY THE 10:33:12 DETAILS FOR THE RECORD THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 10:33:14 MR. CHAIRMAN, IN I COULD, I'D LIKE TO GET A RESPONSE TO A 10:33:19 QUESTION DEALING WITH THE STARK TREATY. 10:33:22 SORT OF THE SAME THING. >> YOU WILL EXPECT THAT ANSWER 10:33:25 FOR THE RECORD THEN RELATIVE TO SENATOR THUNE'S QUESTION. 10:33:29 SENATOR HAGGAN? >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION ON 10:33:32 STARK? >> HE'S GOING TO SUBMIT THAT TO 10:33:34 YOU FOR THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 10:33:39 THANK YOU BOTH, SECRETARY GATES AND ADMIRAL MULLEN FOR YOUR 10:33:44 TESTIMONY TODAY AND YOUR DEDICATION TO OUR MEN AND WOMEN 10:33:46 IN THE MILITARY. SECRETARY GATES, I APPLAUD YOU 10:33:52 FOR THE TREMENDOUS JOB THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN 10:33:57 CARRYING OUT AND THE RELIEF EFFORTS UNDERWAY IN HAITI. 10:33:59 THE ABILITY FOR OUR MARITIME FORCES TO OPERATE FROM A SEA 10:34:04 BASE WHILE RAPIDLY TRANSITIONING PERSONNEL FROM SEA AND ASHORE IS 10:34:09 AN EXCELLENT DEMONSTRATION WHAT OUR MILITARY IS CAPABLE OF DOING 10:34:11 AND ESPECIALLY USEFUL IN THE SITUATION IN HAITI WHERE THERE'S 10:34:16 LIMITED CAPACITY FOR AIR TRANSPORT. 10:34:18 I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN OUR ADVANTAGE IN 10:34:22 PROJECTING SEA POWER ACROSS THE RANGE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS 10:34:26 FROM HUMANITARIAN RELIEF TO COMBAT, AND MY QUESTION, 10:34:29 SECRETARY GATES, AND ADMIRAL MULLEN IS, DO THE MILITARY 10:34:33 DEPARTMENTS AND COMBATANT COMMANDERS HAVE SUFFICIENT 10:34:37 AMPHIBIOUS OPERATIONAL CAPABILITIES TO ADDRESS THE FULL 10:34:39 SPECTRUM OF REQUIREMENTS BOTH MILITARY AND HUMAN TEAR 10:34:43 ANTICIPATED WITH THE QDR? >> MA'AM, AS I GO BACK OVER THE 10:34:47 LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS AND THEN LOOK AT THE FUTURE, MY OVERALL 10:34:53 ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE YES. WE CERTAINLY HAVE, WITH THE 10:34:58 DEPARTMENT OVER THE YEARS DEBATED AND THERE'S BEEN A 10:35:00 TENSION, A TENSION, I THINK IT'S A GOOD TENSION TO GET THIS RIGHT 10:35:07 AND IT FOCUSES SPECIFICALLY ON THE AMOUNT OF AMPHIBIOUS LIFT 10:35:11 CAPABILITY THAT WE HAVE. ACTUALLY, ONE OF MY CONCERNS 10:35:16 SPECIFICALLY -- RIGHT NOW, YES. ONE OF MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE 10:35:18 FUTURE, AND I'M CERTAIN THAT THE COMMON MARINE CORPS SHARES THIS, 10:35:26 THE MARINE CORPS HAS BEEN VERY HEAVY AND FIFTH OR SIXTH YEAR 10:35:33 FIGHTING A LAND WAR. NOT WHAT IT WANTS TO DO. 10:35:35 A LOT OF ADJUSTS HAVE TO BE MADE. 10:35:37 MARINE CORPS HAS TO GET LIGHTER THAN IT'S BEEN IN THE PAST. 10:35:41 THIS DISCUSSION WILL CONTINUE, BUT AS FAR AS MY VIEW OF THE 10:35:45 FUTURE, I THINK WE'VE GOT IT ABOUT RIGHT AS WE SIT. 10:35:50 >> THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT WE'VE ALREADY 10:35:53 DISCUSSED WHAT THE IEDs SOMEWHAT. 10:35:56 I KNOW IN AFGHANISTAN THE MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN AND THE 10:35:59 LIMITED COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE CERTAINLY POSES A 10:36:03 DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT IED THREAT AS OPPOSE TO WHAT WE HAVE SEEN 10:36:05 IN IRAQ. AND WE NEED ADDITIONAL 10:36:09 PERSONNELALITY THE BATTALION AND COMPANY LEVELS WITH THE 10:36:11 APPROPRIATE EXPERTISE AND TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT TO DETECT 10:36:14 THE ICHT EDs IN AREAS SUCH AS AFGHANISTANS WHERE THE 10:36:21 INSURGENTS UTILIZE THE PRIMITIVE FORMS WITH VERY LITTLE METALLIC 10:36:26 CONTENT BURIED INTO THE GROUND. WHAT TYPE OF FEEDBACK ARE YOU 10:36:32 RECEIVE CENTCOM WITH RESPECT TO PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS 10:36:36 ENCOUNTERING THE IEDs AND WRAP DO YOU EXPECT TO THE DO TO 10:36:40 ADDRESS SHORTAGES THAT EXIST? >> A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF THE 10:36:45 30,000 TROOPS THAT WILL BE GOING ARE IN THE CATEGORY OF WHAT WE 10:36:48 CALL ENABLERS. AND THAT INCLUDES ENGINEERS, 10:36:55 ROUTE CLEARANCE SPECIALISTS. C 10:37:03 COUNTERCOUNTER-IED SPECIALISTS, ALL OF WHOM ARE PEOPLE 10:37:05 ASSOCIATED WITH INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE, 10:37:10 ALL PART OF A COUNTER-IED EFFORT. 10:37:13 ONE OF THE INITIATIVES THAT THIS TEMPORARY TASK FORCE THAT I'VE 10:37:18 SET UP UNDER GENERAL PAXTON AND DR. CARTER IS LOOKING AT IS 10:37:24 ESTABLISHING AT THE BATTALION LEVEL WHAT WE WOULD CALL A 10:37:28 WAREHOUSE APPROACH FOR COUNTER-IEDs, WHICH WOULD 10:37:32 BASICALLY, INSTEAD OF GIVING EVERY BATTALION THE SAME SET OF 10:37:38 EQUIPMENT, RATHER RATHER HAVE AN ARRAY OF EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO 10:37:41 THAT BATTALION SO EACH OF THE TEAMS GOING OUT CAN SELECT THE 10:37:45 EQUIPMENT THAT SEEMS MOST APPROPRIATE TO THAT MISSION THAT 10:37:49 DAY. WE HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF THESE 10:37:51 DETECTORS AND INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES AND SO ON, AND THE 10:37:54 IDEA IS, SOME OF THESE UNITS ARE BETTER, FRANKLY, WITH CERTAIN 10:38:01 KINDS OF EQUIPMENT THAN OTHER. THERE'S A CERTAIN -- THERE'S 10:38:04 MORE THAN A LITTLE ART IN THIS. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO 10:38:08 IS FIGURE OUT HOW AT THE BATTALION LEVEL WE, IN ESSENCE, 10:38:13 COULD HAVE AN ARRAY OF EQUIPMENT THAT A TEAM GOING OUT COULD TAKE 10:38:17 ADVANTAGE OF. SO I THINK THAT THERE IS AN 10:38:20 UNDERSTANDING ON THE PART OF GENERAL McCHRYSTAL AND GENERAL 10:38:24 PETRAEUS THAT WE ARE POURING EVERY -- EVERY BIT OF 10:38:30 COUNTER-IED CAPABILITY INTO AFGHANISTAN AS WE CAN. 10:38:33 >> THANK YOU. MY TIME IS UP. 10:38:36 >> THANK YOU, SENATOR HAGGAN. >> WE DO HAVE A LOT TO TALK 10:38:42 ABOUT, AND I SHARE SENATOR SESSIONS VIEW THAT IT WOULD BE 10:38:46 NICE TO HAVE YOU BACK. I HOPE THE CHAIRMAN WILL BE ABLE 10:38:49 TO ARRANGE THAT. MY FIRST QUESTION IS ABOUT THE 10:38:53 313 SHIP NAVY, ADMIRAL MULLEN. THE CBO RECENTLY TESTIFIED THE 10:38:57 CURRENT SHIP BUILDING BCHS ARE NOT ENOUGH TO FUND THE NAVY'S 10:39:00 PLAN TO INCREASE THE FLEET TO 313, AND I THINK WE ALL KNOW 10:39:05 THAT. I ASSUME YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 10:39:09 AT 283, THE SERVICE HAS THE SMALLEST FLEET SINCE 1916. 10:39:12 PRE-WORLD WAR I. WE NEED TO BUILD MORE THAN 12 10:39:17 SHIPS PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 18 YEARS TO ARRIVE AT 313. 10:39:25 IS 313 STILL THE REQUIREMENT, ADMIRAL MULLEN? 10:39:28 AND HOW DOES THIS BUDGET, HOW DOES THIS QDR SUPPORT THE GOAL 10:39:33 OF A 313-SHIP NAVY? T. IS STILL A GOAL. 10:39:36 IT IS -- IT WAS WHEN I'D LED THAT ANALYSIS AND GENERATED THAT 10:39:42 REQUIREMENT AS CNO AND REMAINS THE FLOOR. 10:39:46 IT WAS A NUMBER THAT WAS ACHIEVED WITH, YOU KNOW, AN 10:39:49 UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RISKS WOULD BE. 10:39:53 WE, THE TOTAL WE, THAT'S THE SERVICES, THE DEPARTMENT, THOSE 10:39:57 THAT BUILD SHIPS CERTAINLY CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT, HAD BEEN 10:40:02 WORKING FOR YEARS TO GET MORE MONEY INTO THE SHIP-BUILDING 10:40:04 ACCOUNT. AND I THINK AS WE LAID OUT 10:40:08 THERE, SOME $15 BILLION THIS YEAR. 10:40:10 IT'S TEN SHIP, ONE OF HAD IS AN ARMY SHIP. 10:40:13 WE ARE, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE NOT GOING TOBLE ABLE TO DO BUILD 10:40:16 TO THAT NUMBER OF SHIPS, THEY KEEP COSTING A LOT MORE THAN 10:40:19 THEY EXPECT THEY WILL. THAT'S THE ACQUISITION REFORM IS 10:40:22 REALLY A CRITICAL PART OF THAT, AND I'LL USE LCS AS AN EXAMPLE. 10:40:27 THAT HAS COST, HAS BEEN -- WHILE I HAD EXPECTATIONS THE COSTS 10:40:31 WOULD GO UP, CERTAINLY NOT TO THE DEGREE THAT IT HAS. 10:40:35 AND SO THAT HAS TO BE CONTAINED. WE DON'T NEED THE PERFECT SHIP 10:40:39 OR THE PERFECT AIRPLANE. AS WE LOOK TO THE FUTURE. 10:40:44 SO THERE'S -- I ARGUED FOR YEARS THERE'S GOT TO BE A STRATEGIC 10:40:48 PARTNERSHIP ACROSS ALL THREE ENTITIES IN ORDER TO GET SHIP 10:40:52 BUILDING AND MAJOR PROCUREMENT RIGHT. 10:40:54 I THINK THIS BUDGET TAKES STEPS IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT YOU DON'T 10:40:57 HAVE TO DO THE -- YOU CAN JUST DO THE MATH AND SEE WE'RE NOT 10:41:00 GOING TO GET TO 313, AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE SATISFIED WITH 10:41:04 283. WHICH IS SORT OF WHAT THE 10:41:05 PROJECTION IS RIGHT NOW. GIVEN THE DEMANDS THAT WE HAVE. 10:41:10 FOR OUR NAVY, OUR MILITARY AND OUR NAVY. 10:41:12 >> IT'S GOING TO TAKE ACQUISITION REFORM TO GET US TO 10:41:17 THAT FLOOR NUMBER, 313. WHEN DO YOU THINK WE MIGHT BE 10:41:20 ABLE TO ACTUALLY MAKE SOME PROGRESS IN THAT REGARD? 10:41:24 >> I THINK THE SECRETARY AND MANY OTHERS, MYSELF INCLUDED, 10:41:27 HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO REALLY PUT OUR, GET OUR ARMS AROUND 10:41:32 REQUIREMENTS GROWTH. HAVING EXPERTISE THERE. 10:41:34 HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS 10:41:38 THAT ARE CERTAINLY IN GREAT FOCUS RIGHT NOW, AND THERE'S 10:41:44 MORE TO DO, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE -- IT WILL BE -- IT WILL 10:41:48 ABOUT FEW YEARS, I THINK, BEFORE THAT REALLY TAKE AS GRIP AND 10:41:51 STARTS TO HAVE THE KIND OF IMPACT TO BE ABLE TO GENERATE 10:41:54 THAT, THE KIND OF CAPABILITY YOU NEED WITH COST. 10:41:58 I'M ENCOURAGE BY THIS SHIP-BUILDING PROGRAM. 10:42:01 IT'S GOT TWO SUBMARINES IN IT. THE FIRST YEAR IT'S GOT. 10:42:04 I CAN TELL YOU, IT TOOK ALMOST TEN YEARS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 10:42:08 SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO -- I THINK IT CONTINUES TO NEED TO BE 10:42:12 AN AREA OF FOCUS. IT'S A VITAL CAPABILITY FOR OUR 10:42:14 COUNTRY. AND AS YOU INDICATED, IT'S THE 10:42:18 SMALLEST NAVY WE'VE HAD FOR MANY, MANY DECADES AND FOR A 10:42:20 COUNTRY THAT IS A -- A, KNOW, THAT HAS BIG BODIES OF WATER ON 10:42:27 BOTH COASTS, IT'S A MARITIME COUNTRY, THAT'S A GREAT CONCERN. 10:42:30 >> WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY WE ARE SHORT-CHANGING PART OF THE 10:42:34 MISSION? COULD YOU -- ENLIGHTEN US AS 10:42:39 TO -- WHAT ASPECTS OF OUR MISSION ARE WE SHORTCHANGING? 10:42:43 BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF THESE 313 SHIPS? 10:42:46 >> THE NAVY IS VERY PRESSED OPERATING AT A VERY HIGH TEMPO 10:42:49 AND I THINK ADMIRAL WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR HIMSELF 10:42:53 WOULD SAY HE SORT OF IS AT THE EDGE OF BEING ABLE TO MEET THE 10:42:57 COMMITMENTS IN TERMS OF GLOBAL COMMITMENTS. 10:42:59 HEAVILY FOCUSED, OUR NAVY IS HEAVILY FOCUSED IN THE GULF AS 10:43:02 WELL. THE SEA BASE JUST CREATED 10:43:04 QUICKLY IN HAITI IS CERTAINLY WELL WITH WHAT WE EXPECT AND CAN 10:43:09 DO, BUT GIVEN THE UP TEMPO THAT OUR NAVY AND AIR FORCE, QUITE 10:43:16 FRANKLY, IS UNDER, WHICH SOMETIMES GETS LOST. 10:43:20 IT'S INCREASED AS WE. THE ADMIRAL'S CONCERN, WE ARE 10:43:23 WEARING CAPABILITY OUT AND NOT REPLACING IT AT A RATE THAT 10:43:27 GOATS TA KIND OF NUMBER THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. 10:43:32 >> I. S 10:43:33 SEE -- I SEE. LET ME MOVE BACK TO A POINT 10:43:35 SENATOR McCAIN WAS MAKING. I JUST RETURNED ALSO FROM 10:43:37 AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN AND I AGREE WITH SENATOR McCAIN THAT 10:43:44 THIS JULY 2011 DATE IS MENTIONED WHEN YOU TALK TO LEADERS OVER 10:43:47 THERE. THERE WAS A TERM THAT WE CAME 10:43:52 BACK WITH FROM OUR -- WITH LEADER McCONNELL. 10:43:57 A DEFICIT OF TRUST. IT'S NOT JUST A DATE FOR THE 10:44:01 BEGINNING OF THE DRAWDOWN, BUT ALSO SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO 10:44:06 PAKISTAN, IT'S THE DECADE OF REALLY VERY ILL WILL BETWEEN THE 10:44:12 UNITED STATES AND THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN. 10:44:13 DO YOU AGREE, SECRETARY GATES, THAT THERE IS A DEFICIT OF TRUST 10:44:22 ABOUT THE UNITED STATES ' INTENTION TO BE A LONG-TERM 10:44:29 STRATEGIC PARTNER WITH AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN? 10:44:30 AND WHAT ARE WE DOING TO ADDRESS THAT DEFICIT TRUST? 10:44:37 >> I THINK THERE ARE DEFINITELY, THERE IS DEFINITELY A DEFICIT OF 10:44:41 TRUST WITH PAKISTAN AND I THINK IT'S HISTORICAL. 10:44:47 THE PAKISTANIS WILL SPEAK OF THREE OR FOUR AMERICAN 10:44:50 BETRAYALS. ONLY THE MOST RECENT OF WHICH 10:44:54 ARE TURNING OUR BACKS ON AFGHANISTAN AND THEM AFTER THE 10:44:59 SOVIETS WITHDREW, AND THE OTHER, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 10:45:03 PRESSLER AMENDMENT AND CUT OFF OF MILITARY TO MILITARY 10:45:06 RELATIONSHIPS. I THINK, FRANKLY, THE WAY THAT 10:45:09 TRUST IS REBUILT IS WITH TIME, EFFORT AND ACTIONS. 10:45:15 I THINK THAT THE -- I THINK ADMIRAL MULLEN AT THIS POINT HAS 10:45:18 IN HIS 2 1/2 YEARS AS CHAIRMAN BEEN TO PAKISTAN PROBABLY 15 OR 10:45:25 16 TIMES. HE HAS AN EXTRAORDINARY 10:45:27 RELATIONSHIP WITH GENERAL KIANI. I THINK THERE IS A GOOD PERSONAL 10:45:33 TRUST THERE. BUT I THINK WHERE PAKISTANIS AS 10:45:36 A WHOLE, IT IS OUR STICKING WITH THEM. 10:45:41 IT IS -- IT IS OUR ATTENTION TO THEIR PROBLEMS, INCLUDING THEIR 10:45:44 ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND SO WE COMMEND THE KERRY LUGAR BERMAN 10:45:52 BILL, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK BEING STEADFAST IS 10:45:56 IMPORTANT. I WAS IN PAKISTAN JUST A COUPLE 10:45:58 OF WEEKS AGO, AND SPOKE DIRECTLY TO THIS, AND I WOULD SAY THAT IN 10:46:02 SOME AREAS THAT'S MORE THAN A DEFICIT OF TRUST. 10:46:06 THERE ARE CONSPIRACY THEORIES OVER THERE ABOUT OUR WANTING TO 10:46:09 TAKE THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS. ABOUT OUR WANTING TO DIVIDE THEM 10:46:12 UP. ALL KINDS OF THINGS. 10:46:14 AND I SPOKE TO THAT DIRECTLY, AND SO I THINK HONESTY IN 10:46:18 DEALING WITH THEM, BUT A LONG-TERM EFFORT IS WHAT'S GOING 10:46:21 TO BE REQUIRED. IN AFGHANISTAN, MY PERSONAL 10:46:23 SENSE IS THAT WE HAVE IN THE VARIOUS VISITS THAT I HAVE MADE 10:46:32 AND ADMIRAL MULLEN AND OTHERS, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT JULY 2011 10:46:37 IS THE BEGINNING OF A PROCESS, AND THAT THERE IS NO DEADLINE ON 10:46:40 THAT PROCESS. BUT THERE ALSO IS AN 10:46:45 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY SOME OF THE AFGHANS THAT IN EFFECT THEY 10:46:48 NEEDED THAT KIND OF WAKE-UP CALL IN ORDER TO BEGIN TO REALIZE 10:46:53 THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY THEMSELVES FOR 10:46:58 DEFEATING THE TALIBAN. THAT THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT 10:47:01 EVERYBODY ELSE COULD DO FOR THEM. 10:47:03 AND SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE TO 10:47:07 THE AFGHANS IS THAT EVEN AS OUR SECURITY FORCES DRAW DOWN OVER 10:47:11 THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS, THAT OUR PRESENCE THERE, OUR WILLINGNESS 10:47:15 TO PARTNER WITH THEM, OUR WILLINGNESS TO BE A PART OF 10:47:18 THEIR ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL LIFE GOING FORWARD IS A 10:47:22 LONG-TERM DECADES LONG COMMITMENT BY THE UNITED STATES 10:47:25 TO THAT COUNTRY. NOT TO HAVE A HUGE MILITARY 10:47:28 FORCE THERE, BUT HELPING THEM GET CONTROL OF THEIR SECURITY 10:47:33 SITUATION AND THEN THEM BEING IN CHARGE OF THEIR COUNTRY. 10:47:36 BUT I THINK THE JULY 2011, I KNOW IT'S CONTROVERSIAL. 10:47:39 MY OWN VIEW IS THAT IT PROVIDED EXACTLY THE RIGHT INCENTIVE FOR 10:47:45 THEM TO BEGIN TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY, BUT BY HAVING NO 10:47:50 TERMINAL DATE ON IT, IT ALLOWS US TO DO A CONDITIONS-BASED 10:47:56 WITHDRAWAL THAT I THINK MAKES SENSE. 10:47:58 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR WICKER. 10:48:00 SENATOR WEBB? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 10:48:04 GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE QDR. 10:48:06 WE HAVE YOUR BUDGET PROPOSAL. THIS IS NOT THE MOMENT TO 10:48:12 COMMENT FROM OUR SIDE OF THE TABLE ON THE DETAILS IN THERE. 10:48:15 I WOULD LIKE THAT TO THANK SENATOR WICKER FOR HIS COMMENTS 10:48:22 ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE NAVY AND THE CHALLENGES IN THE NAVY, AND 10:48:25 OBVIOUSLY AS YOU KNOW, I DO NOT THINK IT IS AN APPROPRIATE 10:48:34 BUDGET ITEM FOR THE NAVY TO THINK THEY CAN SPEND $1 BILLION 10:48:38 IN UPGRADING A NICE TO HAVE FACILITY IN MAYPORT AT THE SAME 10:48:44 TIME WHEN WE'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO BUILD A FLEET UP TO 313 10:48:48 SHIPS. ADMIRAL MULLEN, YOU'LL RECALL 10:48:50 WHEN YOU AND I WERE COMMISSIONED IN 1968, WE HAD 930 SHIPS IN THE 10:48:55 UNITED STATES NAVY. WENT DOWN TO 479 WHEN I WAS 10:48:57 SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, WENT UP TO 568. 10:49:01 BUT I WANT TO SET THAT ASIDE, MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING 10:49:07 TO CONTINUE THAT DISCUSSION. I WANT TO SET THAT ASIDE, AND MY 10:49:11 FIVE MINUTES, TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. 10:49:13 THAT IS, THAT I DON'T BELIEVE, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT THE D.O.D. 10:49:18 BUDGET SHOULD BE SACROSANCT WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT THE 10:49:22 CONSTRAINTS AND EXAMINATIONS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE PUTTING ON 10:49:25 DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. AND SECRETARY GATES, I TAKE YOUR 10:49:28 POINT ABOUT NOT WANTING TO GO INTO FORCE STRUCTURE REDUCTIONS, 10:49:34 BUT AT THE SAME TIME I BELIEVE YOU CAN MEET THE CHALLENGES AND 10:49:37 ADAPT FOR THE FUTURE AND STILL CLEAN UP A LOT OF UNNECESSARY 10:49:42 PROGRAMS THAT EXIST IN THE PENTAGON BY TAKING A HARD LOOK 10:49:46 AT PROGRAMS THAT DON'T PRODUCE A CLEAR BOTTOM LINE, AND ARE NOT 10:49:52 SIMPLY HARDWARE SYSTEMS OR FORESTRUCTURE ISSUES. 10:49:58 I I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE 10:50:03 PROGRESS YOU'VE MADE, WHICH YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR OPENING 10:50:05 STATES, BUT I THINK THERE COMES A TIME EVERY NOW AND THEN TO TH 10:50:11 SHAKE THINGS DOWN. WHEN I WAS SECRETARY OF THE 10:50:15 NAVY, WE HAD TO IMPLEMENT IT IN 1988. 10:50:19 IT MANDATED A 10% ACROSS THE BOARD REDUCTION IN DEFENSE 10:50:24 PROGRAMS. IT WAS A 5% GOVERNMENT-WIDE 10:50:27 MANDATE AND HALF OF THE PROGRAMS AT THAT TIME WERE FENCED. 10:50:30 THEY WENT TOO FAR. I RESIGNED. 10:50:37 IT DOESN'T HURT TO REALLY GET INTO EFFICIENCIES IN AN AREA 10:50:41 WHERE WE ARE NOT GETTING AN APPROPRIATE BOTTOM LINE. 10:50:45 LET ME GIVE YOU THREE DATA POINTS. 10:50:47 I WOULD ASK TODAY FOR YOU TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO REALLY 10:50:51 EXAMINE THESE TYPES OF PROGRAMS. YOU AND I ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE 10:50:55 BLACKWATER PROGRAM THAT I WROTE YOU ABOUT IN '07 WHEN WE CAME TO 10:51:01 RESOLUTION WHERE OUT IN SAN DIEGO, THEY WERE GOING TO SPEND 10:51:04 MORE THAN $60 MILLION FOR A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR TO TRAIN 10:51:10 SAILORS HOW TO DO YOUR JOB AND HOW TO DEFEND YOURSELF ON BOARD 10:51:14 A SHIP. THE FIRST QUESTION I HAD WAS THE 10:51:17 FACT THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING ACTIVE DUTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN 10:51:19 DOING AND NOT A CONTRACTOR. THE MAJOR CONCERN WAS THIS 10:51:24 PROGRAM CAME FROM 0 AND M BLOCK FUNDING. 10:51:29 IT WAS NEVER AUTHORIZED OR APPROPRIATED AS A PROGRAM. 10:51:33 IT WAS APPROVED BY A LOWER LEVEL OFFICIAL AT THE DIFFERENTLY NEVE 10:51:37 BASED ON THE NEEDS OF THE FLEET. WE FOUND OUT THAT THE SECRETARY 10:51:41 OF THE NEVE DIDN'T HAVE TO REVIEW THAT PROGRAM UNLESS IT 10:51:44 WAS A $78 BILLION PROGRAM. THERE IS A PROGRAM EXISTING 10:51:52 RIGHT NOW WHERE WE ARE SENDING BASICALLY MILITARY OFFICERS OVER 10:51:59 TO THINK TANKS. YOUR OWN SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. 10:52:05 IT'S PART OF CREATING A THINK TANK. 10:52:09 CNAF. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THESE 10:52:11 PROGRAMS IS THEY GET MILITARY FELLOWS. 10:52:13 THESE ARE ACTIVE DUTY AND THEY GO OVER AND GET THE FULL PAY AND 10:52:17 ALLOWANCES AND GET TUITION. THE NUMBERS THAT I SAW WERE 10:52:20 $17,000 A SEMESTER FOR WHATEVER A SEMESTER IS TO PAY THE RENT 10:52:26 AND THE COMPUTERS AND ALL THE REST OF THAT. 10:52:29 ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER IS FUNDING 10:52:36 THINK TANKS TO KEEP THEM IN BUSINESS. 10:52:39 THEY DON'T PRODUCE ADDED VALUE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IN 10:52:43 TERMS OF A DIRECT CONTRIBUTION. ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT JUST CAME 10:52:48 UP OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS WAS THIS MENTOR PROGRAM. 10:52:53 ACCORDING TO NEWS REPORTS YOU CAN HAVE RETIRED HIGH RANKING 10:52:58 GENERAL OFFICERS AND ADMIRALS MAKING WELL IN EXCESS OF 10:53:04 $100,000 A YEAR IN THEIR RETIREMENT. 10:53:07 80% WORKING WITH DEFENSE CONTRACTORS AND THEN GOING IN 10:53:10 AND MAKING UP TO $2600 A DAY TO GIVE THEIR ADVICE. 10:53:15 IN OTHER WORDS, A RETIRED ADMIRAL OR GENERAL CAN MAKE MORE 10:53:24 IN A DAY THAN A CORPORAL IN AFGHANISTAN WILL MAKE IN A MONTH 10:53:28 TO DO WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO DO ANYWAY. 10:53:32 FULFILL HIS STUARTSHIP AND HAVING SPENT A CAREER IN THE 10:53:35 MILITARY. I DON'T KNOW THE FULL COST OF 10:53:37 THAT, BUT ACCORDING TO "USA TODAY," THESE PEOPLE ARE BEING 10:53:41 PAID BETWEEN 200 AND $340 AN HOUR PLUS EXPENSES. 10:53:47 THEY ARE HIRED AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND NOT SUBJECT TO 10:53:49 GOVERNMENT ETHICS RULES. THEY OPERATE OUTSIDE PUBLIC 10:53:54 SCRUTINY AND MANY WORK FOR WEAPONS MAKERS AND IN EFFECT ARE 10:53:58 ABLE TO EITHER GAIN INFOR FOR COMPANIES OR EXCHANGE DATA. 10:54:04 THAT'S NOT THE MILITARY I GREW UP IN. 10:54:06 THAT'S NOT THE MILITARY YOU AND I SERVED IN. 10:54:09 THAT'S NOT THE PENTAGON I SERVED IN IN THE 1980s. 10:54:12 THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS I THINK WE CAN DO AND NOT AFFECT 10:54:16 THE STRUCTURE. >> WE CERTAINLY WILL CONTINUE TO 10:54:22 LOOK AT THESE THINGS. I WILL TELL YOU ON THE MENTORING 10:54:27 PROGRAM DEPUTY SECRETARY HAS BEEN REVIEWING THIS AND YOU WILL 10:54:33 SEE GREAT VALUE IN THE PROGRAM, BUT DRAMATIC CHANGES IN THE WAY 10:54:37 IT'S ADMINISTERED. >> I WOULD HOPE SO. 10:54:42 >> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN FOR YOUR SERVICE AND FOR BEING HERE TO 10:54:46 ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. SECRETARY GATES, WHEN WE 10:54:50 CAPTAINURE AN ENEMY COMBATANT, DO WE READ THEM MIRANDA RIGHTS? 10:54:54 >> NO. >> WHY SHOULD WE DO SO IF WE 10:54:57 CAPTURE ONE IN THIS COUNTRY? >> THAT'S A QUESTION BETTER 10:55:03 ADDRESSED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SENATOR. 10:55:04 >> YOU WERE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE BEFORE YOU 10:55:09 WERE SECRETARY OF THE DEFENSE. >> YES, SIR. 10:55:11 >> I ASSUME YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS. 10:55:20 >> MY VIEW IS THAT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER SOMEONE IS PUT INTO THE 10:55:28 AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM OR INTO THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS IS A 10:55:32 JUDGMENT BEST MADE BY THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE 10:55:36 UNITED STATES. >> BEFORE THEY GET TO 10:55:38 COMMISSION, THERE IS A QUESTION OF BEINGA ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS 10:55:41 AND WE KNOW THERE IS A CHILLING EFFECT WHEN WE GIVE SOMEONE 10:55:45 MIRANDA RIGHTS. IF WE ARE NOT DOING IT OVERSEAS, 10:55:48 I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD BE DOING IT IN THIS COUNTRY. 10:55:52 >> WE HAVE BEEN PLACED PROTOCOLS NOW THAT AND THERE IS AUTHORITY 10:55:59 UNDER THE LAW THAT IF A PERSON IS DEEMED TO BE A THREAT TO THE 10:56:04 NATIONAL SECURITY AS A SELF-CONFESSED TERRORIST WOULD 10:56:07 BE, THERE CAN BE DELAYED IN MIRANDIZING TO ALLOW TIME FOR 10:56:12 QUESTIONING. WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT 10:56:16 EVEN IN THE ARTICLE THREE SYSTEM. 10:56:18 >> MY COLLEAGUE WAS TALKING ABOUT MAKING IT WORK AND HE HAS 10:56:26 A DIFFERENT VIEW TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF A TERRORIST ATTACK, 10:56:30 ACCIDENT OR NATURAL DISASTER. IN MAYPORT, I KNOW YOU SUPPORT 10:56:35 THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT THERE IS NO MONEY IN THE BUDGET 10:56:40 FOR THE NUCLEARIZATION PROJECTS OR OTHER PROJECTS THAT NEED TO 10:56:43 BE COMPLETED. >> THERE IS $239 MILLION FOR THE 10:56:48 MAYPORT MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FOR MAYPORT. 10:56:50 >> THANK YOU. >> MULLEN, WILL YOU DESIGNATE A 10:56:54 SHIP TO MAYPORT IN THE COMING MONTHS? 10:56:58 >> ACTUALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT MINE. 10:57:04 THAT IN THE END WOULD BE A DECISION THAT THE NAVY WOULD 10:57:06 RECOMMEND AND IT WOULD COME UP TO THE SECRETARY. 10:57:11 # >> ARE YOU BRINGING ONE UP SOON? 10:57:18 >> WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. # 10:57:27 WE HAVE GIVEN INFORMATION ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S 35% OVER 10:57:31 BUDGET WHICH I THINK IS ABOUT $18 BILLION IF MY NUMBERS ARE 10:57:36 CORRECT. THIS PROGRAM STARTED IN THE MID 10:57:39 90s AND WE WENT TO THE MOON QUICKER THAN WE PRODUCED THIS 10:57:41 PLANE. I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO TRY 10:57:44 TO GET THIS UNDER CONTROL. I SAW THERE WAS A SUSPENSION OF 10:57:48 THE PERFORMANCE BENEFITS. MY QUESTION IS IN TERMS OF 10:57:52 ACQUISITION REFORM, IT SEEMS TO ME THERE NEEDS TO BE REFORM 10:57:56 ACROSS THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, PROBABLY ACROSS THE 10:58:00 GOVERNMENT. NOT JUST PERFORMANCE BONUSES, 10:58:04 BUT PENALLIES UNDER THE VENDORS. IS THERE A PERSON YOU CHARGED AS 10:58:10 RESPONSIBLE TO LEAD THE EFFORT AND ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE 10:58:14 CONTRACTS TO MAKE SURE THEY BEAR THE COST IF PROGRAMS WERE 10:58:20 DELAYED? >> UNDER SECRETARY CARTER E, HE 10:58:23 IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT AND TAKING A LOOK AT A LARGE NUMBER 10:58:26 OF CONTRACTS. >> I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE 10:58:29 THERE YESTERDAY TO SPEAK WITH GENERAL PETREUS AND IN FOLLOW-UP 10:58:33 TO MY TRIP TO AFGHANISTAN AT THE END OF OCTOBER WHICH I WENT WITH 10:58:38 SENATOR BURNS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, WE NOTED THAT OUR 10:58:44 INFORMATION OUT TO THE AFGHAN PEOPLE. 10:58:48 MAYBE NOT DOING AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE. 10:58:51 THE GENERAL TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN 10:58:55 THE SURGE IN IRAQ BECAUSE OF THE POWER OF IDEAS AND NOT THE POWER 10:58:59 OF THE FORCES. THIS IS THE NEED TO COMMIT 11:00:00 CARRIERS. IS THAT SUFFICIENT WHERE 11:00:01 REFITTING THE ENTERPRISE, DO WE NEED TO KEEP THE ENTERPRISE IN 11:00:07 OPERATION UNTIL IT COMES ON LINE? 11:00:09 WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS? >> THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT IS 11:00:11 FOR 11 AND I SUPPORT THAT. THE 10 CARRIER ISSUE IS TO BE 11:00:18 DECIDED LITERALLY DOWN THE ROAD. OBVIOUSLY HOW WE BUILD THEM 11:00:24 GENERATES HOW MANY THEY ARE AND WHEN WE RETIRE THEM. 11:00:28 I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE ENTERPRISE. 11:00:30 IT'S UNIQUE AND INCREDIBLY COSTLY AND THE DECISION TO 11:00:35 DECOMMISSION IT AFTER THE NEXT APPOINTMENT AND TAKE THE RISK IN 11:00:39 THAT GAP I THINK IS A DECISION THAT I SUPPORT, RECOGNIZING 11:00:43 THERE IS RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. 11:00:45 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR. 11:00:49 SENATOR BURRIS. >> THANK YOU AND I WOULD LIKE 11:00:52 ADD MY THANKS TO YOUR WONDERFUL SERVICE YOU DO FOR OUR COUNTRY 11:00:56 AND FOR THOSE IN OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR HAITI, I WANT TO 11:01:02 EXTEND MY THANKS TO THEM AND ALSO REMIND OUR GOVERNMENT THAT 11:01:06 WE ARE THERE AS ASSISTANTS AND NOT TO TAKE OVER OR OCCUPY A 11:01:11 COUNTRY AS PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT. 11:01:13 MAKE SURE WE KEEP THAT MESSAGE GOING FORWARD. 11:01:17 THE DEFENSE INTEGRATED MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEMS. 11:01:22 THE LARGEST PROGRAM EVER IMPLEMENTED FOR THE HUMAN 11:01:29 RESOURCE WHICH WILL REPLACE OVER SOME 90 LEGACY SYSTEMS, INTENDED 11:01:39 TO BRING ALL PAYROLL AND FUNKS INTO ONE INTEGRATED WEB-BASED 11:01:45 SYSTEM. IN AUGUST OF 1996, THE 11:01:50 DEPARTMENT OF THE TASK FORCE CONCLUDED THAT THE MULTIPLE 11:01:54 SERVICE PERSONNEL AND PACE SYSTEM CAUSED A SIGNIFICANT 11:01:58 SHORT COMING, PARTICULARLY IN THE JOINT ARENA AND EXCESSIVE 11:02:03 DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE COST. 11:02:05 THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT DOD SHOULD MOVE TO A SINGLE ALL 11:02:10 SERVICE, ALL COMPONENT, FULLY INTEGRATED PERSONNEL AND PACED 11:02:15 SYSTEM WITH COMMON CORE SOFTWARE. 11:02:20 THIS PROGRAM FOR THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SAID IT WAS 11:02:26 NECESSARY. WHY IS IT A POORLY PERFORMING