tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN October 24, 2011 10:00am-12:00pm EDT
since classified data is at high risk -- cause of fine data is at high risk of a cyber attack. that is the conclusion down by greg wi;shusen. what's more video of the candidates. say what the reporters are saying and track the latest contributions. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns. plus, links to c-span media partners, all at c- span.org/campaign2012. president obama hence to nevada today for a couple of campaign events as part of a three-day trip through western states. the associated press reports the president will talk about jobs. nevada has the nation's highest unemployment rate at nearly
13.5%. the president goes to california tomorrow, colorado tomorrow night. republican presidential candidate michele bachmann was in iowa this past weekend for several campaign events. she spoke to this conversation at a service in cash out -- at cavalry bible church. she talked about the trip that her ancestors made to the u.s. before settling in iowa. she talks about how her fate has affected her life. trolley after arriving, she greeted congregation members. this is about 55 minutes.
about 98% of the land here is tillable. they heard about this wonderful land of milk and honey known as iowa and they thought, what are we doing here in norway? we want a better chance for our children. it was a tremendous lack of faith. they sold their farm, everything they had. they have five baht -- they have five biological children and they bought tickets to get on the boat and go to the united states. this was a fairly new adventures still at that time. there had been 80 norwegians who had preceded them and come to iowa and a row something called the muskego manifesto. i am paraphrasing here. it talked about how wonderful this land was and they sent it back to norway as a letter.
they talked about in the course of this letter that people can choose any profession they want, can choose to worship god any way they want, and this is something more wonderful than rich's. -- riches. based on those words as they sold their things and said, we want liberty and to practice our faith and a better life for our kids. does that sound familiar? they put it all on the line and they went down to the dock. everything they had literally was in their trunks. they have their oldest son, halver. he was 11 years of age, but he was a very tall norwegian. you would not know i descend
from these people at all. he got down to the ship and the ship captain said, he needs an adult ticket. this is a child's ticket. the ticket was $25 and the family had just sold everything and bought the ticket. their parents -- the parents look at each other and look at the ship captain and said, well, we do not have any money. what are we going to do? the captain said, i am sorry. he cannot go on. think about this. they are about to embark on this ocean voyage thinking they may not make it across because it was very uncertain and they certainly would never come back again. here they had all the kids and everything they own -- they sold the farm. what are they going to do? they said, you will have to turn around and walked back to the village and find someone to live with because we have got to go. imagine that kind of heartbreak.
these are the ancestors that we have descended from. the entire family was heartbroken. nobody was more heartbroken and halver at that moment. there were there at the shore. the whole family got on the ship. halver remained on the banks and when they were getting on, tears were coming out of their eyes and i guess at berkeley heart of the captain, too. he said, i guess we can have one market on board. it will not sink the ship. -- one more kid on board. it will not sink the ship. they took one month to get over to wisconsin. and from there, they literally had to cut down trees and build a wagon to be able to pull it
across wisconsin to get to iowa. they got to desoto. you know where descoto is in wisconsin? they took a cross and actually turned the wagon into a boat. they must have gotten tart or something on that wagon to make it a vote. everything they have was on that wagon. they had a fairy and the women got across on the ferry. it is pretty wide. it was so horrific that the family recorded -- they were amazed at how, gracious the ferry captain was. the white had given them bread -- the wife had given them bread. then they record of this -- recorded this. and then they got to pay little town called jericho, iowa. the only thing in this area is
a two lutheran churches. that tells you something about lutherans. if you have two lutheran churches on the same corner, you might have a division of opinion now and then. my husband and i were there recently and we looked through some of the records. that where milker and martha are buried. when we started reading the records of the church, these were faithful believers, people with a genuine faith in jesus christ. this was not some happenstance
faith. this was not religion. this was not tradition. this was a real faith borne out by real people experiencing perilous times. and here in jericho, iowa, everything was about the church. as we went through the various generations of our own family -- my parents were very faithful. i was born in waterloo. they took us to the same church bring up and we sat each week in the same pew. my grandmother taught bible study there. but when we grew up, i know without a shadow of a doubt in our lutheran church that the gospel was preached from the pulpit. i have no doubt it was breached. but i have to confess to you that i did not understand it.
we would go to sunday school in the morning and we have our bibles and i would take -- my bible with and it just did not make any sense to me. there was a vital part of the week. life went on. my father got a job in honeywell in minneapolis. about a year after we moved up to minnesota, my parents unfortunately got a divorce. there were the first in my family to have a divorce. it happens to millions of people, but it was the first in our family. it was shocking to people. we immediately almost overnight when to below poverty. my father had left my mother had been a full-time homemaker. it was myself and my three brothers.
i want you to know god has a tremendous sense of humor. there is no place that is better preparation for politics than for a girl to grow up with three brothers. you learn how to defend yourself very quickly. my mother had to sell everything in our home. then we move to a tiny apartment in the city. and one thing i want to say -- is in god amazingly wonderful how he will often used challenges in your life and he will brilliantly disguised them as the opportunity for the greatest growth we could ever have and also as a pathway to come to him? there were difficult times and my mother had tremendous faith and she said, hold on. we are going to be fine. with our faith in god we will stick together as a family and we will make this. and when i say this, i mean no
condemnation on any individual what i say this, but my mother said this to us -- she said, no one in my family has ever gone on public assistance and we will not do it either. and we did not. we did not have hardly anything, but we got jobs. i got a job babysitting. i was making 50 cents an hour. that was big money back then. i learned very quickly to be a saber, just like our entire family did because we were determined we were not going to spend more money than what we came in -- that what came in. and my mother made $148 a year. my brother scott paper routes. -- my brothers got paper routes. my mother always said to be grateful you are from iowa. by what is the breadbasket of the world.
and it is true. -- by what is the breadbasket of the world. and it is true. this is such a tremendous stake for feeding people. when we were going through hard times, we held together as a family. if we held together with our faith, but i'd still did not have a living, alive faith. when i was 16 years of age, i had joined every activity there was in school. i loved school and i love being in all the activities. one of the things there was to do was a prayer meeting before school. i went to the prayer meeting and my friends discovered something i did not know. they discovered i did not really know the lord. even though i went to the prayer meeting, they could send in my spirit that i did not truly know him. he was not true the lord of my life. even though i was a nice person, i did not drink, i did not draw, -- did not smoke, i did not do
drugs, i was not chasing wrong with boys. but it did not matter. i still had a wicked heart. i still needed to be saved and damany to jesus christ, but i had not done it at that point -- and bow my knee to jesus christ, but i have not done it at that point. and i had some faithful friends. i heard the way of salvation from the pulpit. and i heard it, and i did not give my life to the lord at the moment. but it stuck with me. later on i was with three friends of mine and it was this time of year. it was beautiful out. we heard there was going to be a party in our lutheran church on halloween evening. if we decided we would go. we were 16 years of all and end of horsing around and decided we would go to this party. we went, my friends and myself. there was no party of the church, about 10:00 at night, but the doors were open. that was not often the case.
we went into the church and when we went in, it was almost like there was a wholly hush that came over the room. -- a holy hushed that came over the room. we were drawn to the altar. at that moment, a horsing around was done. all of us have a tug and our hearts that this was the time for serious business. we came up to the altar and we bowed our knees to the altar and which started talking to god. at that moment, the holy spirit was very powerful. we were there before a holy god. there was no one there, no pastor of in the church. each one of us began to confess our sins to the lord.
we started to tear up because we removed emotionally that we were sinners before god -- we were removed emotionally that we were centers before god. as we support our hearts out and confessed our sins and we repented, which means to turn away 180 degrees from the former life, something absolutely remarkable happened. tears of joy came down our cheeks. for me, i can tell you it was a wonderful, free and experience i had never felt before. we walked back to our apartment and our lives have been changed. we still have our challenging lives, but that night by daud -- i bowed before my bed and all i knew is that i was a new person. the scripture says, behold, we are in the creation when we come to christ.
that is what i felt. i said, lord, i don't know what happened, but i do know this. i will radically abandon my life to you and i give it to you and ask you to come in and make a whole and i will follow you wherever this will lead. after that, i began reading the bible and someone gave me a copy of the living bible. i have never had a copy of the living bible before and i began reading it and i could not get enough of it. it was as if they fail had been lifted from my eyes. if the word of god was alive to
me. i had an appetite and a hunger for the word of god i had never had before. i started to set my alarm, as a 16 year-old, at 5:00 a.m. i got up at 5:00 a.m. so i could spend a solid hour reading the word of god before going to school. and i was reading limitations, jeremiah, second chronicles. i could not get enough. it was as if the board was just filling meet with his word. it was -- it was as if the lord was just filling me with his word. we had a dull said to us under their wings and started to teach us. -- adults, that took us under their wings and started to teach us. this was in 1972. and things started to change. we did not suddenly get out of poverty. life was still challenging.
i worked my way through college. i went from working at a restaurant to driving a school bus to supervising kids at lunch. i did every job i could think of to work my way through college. i worked my way through law school. god brought me a wonderful, got the man who also gave his life when he was 16. my husband was also a farmer and his grandmother had a kg on the television and keep -- had billy kurram on television and he also gave his life to the lord. and there was a film series by france's shaver called "how should we then now live" and in that film series talked about how jesus needs to be a part of every part of our life.
at that time we were not even boyfriend and girlfriend. dr. schaefer said abortion was the watershed issue of our time. how people view that will determine how they view so many other issues. that struck a chord with us. my husband and i were a challenge. we wanted to do more than just talk the talk. we wanted to walk the walk. we began reaching out to young women who were unwed mothers. we reached out to them to try to help them have solutions, to counsel them. we often offered to drive them,
and drive them to pro-life centers. i went through childbirth causes with women who were on wed and about to have a baby. i held their hands as they gave birth. later we had some people in our church during foster care. the lord tug on my heart and asked us to consider foster care. it is the greatest experience of my life to bring 23 foster children into the home. god gave us 23 foster's children. my husband and i both thought this would be a wonderful opportunity. we had home schooled our children for a certain amount of time and then put them in private christian school. we believed we had to answer for how we raise our children. i am pleased to tell you that each of our five biological know
the lord. they walk with the lord. they are wonderful kids. we have our five biological children and our 23 foster children. you are looking at the old woman in the shoe. it has been a great experience. there is so much more i can testify of the love of the board. when i was in the law school, that is when the lord gave me my life. i was praying one day and out of the blue, the lord gave me a first and i adopted it as a the first for my life. it is second corinthians, now the lord is that spirit, and where the spirit of the lord is, there is liberty. that has been my motivation throughout my life. the lord set me free. he set me free to serve him, to love life, to enjoy life, to pour myself into other people, to see the beautiful world he made, and to see what i could do to be a part of that world.
he has shown us his glory. he has come to set the captives free. he is the author of liberty and in my life, i want to do whatever i can to be a part of bringing all liberty and freedom to people in any realm that i possum -- bringing liberty and freedom to people in any realm that i can. i worked as a federal tax litigation attorney. my husband and i started our own small business. we have been so blessed and so grateful to have walked with him all these years. the one thing i would say to anyone who is watching this over television or all of you who are here or by satellite is that ko'd is no -- god is no respecter of persons. he is not partial. what he would do for one, he would do for all. it is important for us to recognize, we were born in sin. that is what happened as the
result of the fall of adam and eve. all of us have been born into sin. there is not one, not one, no matter what we have done in our life, whether we have murdered someone or committed some terrible act that we think we could never before given a four, there is absolutely nothing that any -- be forgiven for, there is absolutely nothing that any of us could have done that could move us away from god. he is so anxious to receive each one of us to himself. he died for everyone, men, women, all races, all ethnicities. he has died for us all to redeem us. that is all this book is. the scarlet thread of redemption
goes from genesis to revelations. grateful for what jesus has done for me. i am so grateful that he saw fit to die for my sins, and i am grateful but my friends prayed for me and ultimately i was able to receive him. i thank you for allowing me to be here and warship you today at this wonderful church. [applause] >> thank you. can i ask you a few questions,
and people are trying to get her, and she proved she knew more than anyone who is asking the questions. breyer has been taken out of schools, and that is when everything began going downhill. president roosevelt led the nation in prayer. if you have the opportunity as president, would that be something and now you would do, following the footsteps of him in that way? >> i think a president does not lose freedom of speech and expression and religious worship
and liberty, and i would be pleased to do that. washington had a prayer for the nation during your washington swore to uphold the constitution, and his first act as president was to take the bible that he put his hand on, and the bible was open, and when it was over, president washington is the bible as the word of god, in recognition that this was a sacred trust being given to him. our nation does not have an established national church. that is what our founders did not want. they were right to stand for
religious liberty. we do not demand people of this country warship out a certain church, but also, if you look at the first amendment, government should not prohibit religious speech and expression, particularly in the public square. that is why you have the first amendment, because congress is not to establish a law against the free expression of religious worship, and i think it is time that people stand for our states, because that is one of our freedoms that our founders lead and died for to give to us. >> i am going to talk about but all little later, but even as recently as fdr, it has been
done. how would you support israel, and how important is it said euan think we support israel? >> i think it is vital, and i am very concerned about those actions. the day after i graduated high school, i went there, and i believe it is very important that we stand up for our allies and israel. 11 minutes after israel declared
sovereignty, a democrat president recognize israel and her sovereignty. that was the greatest assistance israel could have had, to have the proceeds of the united states behind israel. >> i think it is vital that we support israel. i have been concerned about the actions of the current president. this is not a political speech. i have been concerned about those actions. the day after i read with high- school i went to israel and i spent a summer working on a kibutz. i believe it is important that we stand up for our ally, israel. it is very dangerous that for the first time since israel declared her sovereignty, 11 minutes after israel declared her sovereignty, a democrat president, harry truman, recognize israel and her sovereignty. that was the greatest help that israel could have had, to have the prestige and the power of the united states behind israel. when we put it daylight between the netted states and israel,
that raises hostility -- between the netted states and israel, that raises hostility. i think it is important that our nation stand with israel. there is no other friend like israel. we benefit by that friendship and israel benefits as well. we are blessed as a nation. we are blessed as a nation when we bless israel. we need to be praying for the peace of jerusalem. >> that is why i bring that up. the bible talks about that. i am not going to ask questions about taxes. israel, it has to be near and dear to your heart. if we do not stand up for israel, i think as a country, as a big country as us, it would be the end of about writ country. we will not be as great as we are. -- the end of our great country. we will not be as great as we are. whose responsibility is it to educate our children? who gave them that responsibility? >> it belongs to the parents. dodd has given children two parents -- god has given children two parents. he has given responsibility to the parents. we took that seriously. we believed it is our responsibility to present the gospel of jesus christ. we also believe it was our responsibility to make sure they were educated.
i know my mother, we did not have a lot of money, she always made sure there were books. every day, before nap time, as a little girl, i remember crawling in my mother's lap, we had the big chair and we were all sitting on her lap in the big chair, she would have a stack of books this high. every day, we would go through that whole stack of books. it was the best part of the day. even though we did not have much money, like i said, my brothers grew up to be extremely successful. and then you have me. they all grew up to be extremely successful. i looked back -- i honor my father and my mother. i look back to both of them into their example. i am so grateful for that example in our own life. they consistently read to us. they made shore -- sure that education was an important part of what we did. they wanted to make war that we
read. -- sure that we read. we educate our biological children at home. we wanted to make sure they could read. if they can read, they can educate themselves. we tried to put in our children a love for learning. we caught them at home. our oldest biological son is now a position to read the second one has been teaching for two years -- is now a physician. the second one has been teaching for two years. we have three girls in college. it begins at home. the responsibility as parents, parents may delegate that responsibility up to someone else, or ultimately, it is parents who have that responsibility. >> thank you. i think that is all the time for questions. >> thank you. thank you, pastor floyd. [applause]
>> hi, tony. thank you, i appreciate it. [indistinct conversation] thank you, pastor floyd. you did a wonderful service. you put a lot into it. thank you. you are amazing. did you just put these banners up today? oh, do you? that is beautiful. i can help but feel welcome. -- can't help but feel welcome.
thank you. you're visiting? good to meet you. where are you from? is this your church? >> no, but we stopped by. >> i am glad that you did. thank you. good to meet you, joe. >> good luck. >> how many kids did you have? >> 6. >> when you have protection, like keep going? -- perfection, why keep going? i remember. are the girls downstairs in the nursery? >> hopefully you will be able to meet the baby. >> i remember, just as we were leaving. >> i have seven children. i am from here.
this is my son justin. >> were you here last night? it is good to meet you. very nice to meet you. and this is? hi, tiffany. i can see the resemblance. good to meet you. how old are you? >> i am four. >> they are 21, 20, my 20-year- old is in the marines. 19, 17, 13, 6, and 3. >> you are busy. you are very, very busy. bless you, that is awesome. >> i started home schooling them all to read what it is a challenge. it is a lot of work -- all. >> it is a challenge.
it is a lot of work. just take it easy. hi there. thank you. thank you. >> i am supposed to tell you from california that we have a lot of california for you. >> we were just out there last week. are you from there? >> i am from here in iowa. i have been here a long time. >> good. hi, marc. i thought your face looks familiar. >> could i get a picture? >> do you want to be a picture? we can get someone else. peter will take it. >> that is perfect. >> i am glad we could do that. what a great family. you are doing wonderful work.
i am so glad that i got to meet you both. thank you. there she is. i was looking for the better half. well, thank you again. thank you, so much. thank you. thank you. [indistinct conversation] >> we met you a couple of times. >> you are running the city council? >> that is hurt. you are the -- that is her. you are the one running. >> thank you. i am glad i got to meet you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> thank you. thank you. >> we attend here sometimes. >> good to meet you. >> we live just outside of town. . you have a great, brown eyes. -- >> you have great, brown eyes. >> can i get a picture with you? >> yes. hi there. >> this is my friend. we came down. >> you can all that way? aren't you darling. let's take a photo. you are such a sweet girl.
do we still need troops in japan, in germany? do we need our thumb in the world's business everywhere? >> no, and we need to be extremely careful. that is something george washington said in his farewell address. careful of foreign entanglements. in a prove that you have a vital american interests before you put an american man or woman soldier in harm's way. we have just been put in libya. also now in your gun-and central africa. if there is anything we have learned from iraq and afghanistan is once you get rolled in a conflict, it is terribly expensive and difficult to extricate. when you go, you have to get the
job done right and go to win, secure the peace, and get out. i opposed the effort in libya and to conduct as well. now we are deeply involved in the afghanistan situation. iran is waiting in the wings to have dominance in the region. it is a mess. the best thing we can do is keep ourselves secure and safe here, build ourselves up. i believe they can stand on their own two feet. we have been paying for their defense for two long. they need to stand on their own two feet. >> thank you for not dodging the question. the party that i always tried to tell -- i tried to visit with
everybody running for office. if you are willing to send somebody else's sons and daughters to iraq and afghanistan, are you willing to send your own? is it important enough for you or sought to die for? >> i agree, you have to be willing to answer that question. we have three sons and two daughters. i have called many parents that i represented that lost their son or daughter. there is no more difficult call. there's no tragedy then a parent to lose their child. thank you for serving our country. when were you there? >> 1968, 1969, into 1970. >> we have two cousins serving there. >> i was a helicopter pilots,
and i got to see a lot. i got to fly for the cia, the army. i flew for ambassador bunker. i am aware of the bright shining lie, the book that was written. a lot of those instances in the book, i was there. i know what it is about. anyways, you have to go. >> thank you for your service. thank you so much. >> keep up the good work. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> president obama is also on the campaign trail. he is in nevada today as part of a three-day trip to western states.
the associated press reported president will talk about reviving mat housing market. c-span2 will have coverage as the president speaks at a private home at 5:30 p.m.. he then go to california tomorrow and color product marmite coming into wednesday. -- colorado tomorrow night, coming into wednesday. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter fees and facebook updates from the campaign. candidate bias and the latest polling data. and the links to c-span partners. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. several live events today on the c-span networks. on c-span, we will be live at 1:00 eastern as tmz creator
harvey levin talks about the state of the media. c-span2 will be live in about half an hour as the congressional health care caucus convenes a briefing on how states are handling the uninsured. on c-span 3, live right now, european officials in washington talking about the global impact of the financial >> when the u.s. house gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern, then the -- at 4:00. later this week, repeating a 3% withholding and government payments to government contractors, and originally enacted to ensure contractors paid their federal taxes. watch live house for john c- span. the house armed services committee will hold a hearing on the defense industrial base.
it will hear from think tanks -- they will hear from think-tank analysts. >> our review which we issued last week identified the weaknesses existed in key security controls at each of the 24 major federal agencies and departments. >> sensitive personal and classified data stored by the federal government is at high risk of cyber attack. that is the finding of a just- released gao report. find out more with the gao head of security issues, and tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> will and high school students, it is time to get the cameras rolling for this year -- middle and high school students, it is time to get the cameras rolling for this year's studentcam competition. get it in by the deadline of january 20 and you could win the grand prize of $25,000. for complete details go to studentcam.org.
>> sent armed services committee chair carl levin says -- senate armed services committee chairman carl levin says that the u.s. should be prepared to defend if the pakistanis will not take on haqqani network. he talked about the death of muammar gaddafi in the future of libya. this is just over one hour. >> welcome to today's council on foreign relations committee. i will begin with the familiar warning to turn off your cell phone, as i just remember to do myself. also a reminder that this is on the record. >> now you tell me. [laughter] >> it is an honor for me to be with carl levin picking knows his stuff -- carl levin.
he knows his stuff. senator levin was in afghanistan and pakistan in august. in any of the year, that would give us enough to talk about. in the search, there are headlines every 24 hours. i have asked the privilege of asking him about the events in the last 24 hours in libya as well. i am sure you might have some questions along this line. it is a privilege to be here to introduce the senator. he is going to make a few remarks and then we'll go into questions. [applause] staff down here, by the way. [laughter] good morning, everybody. thank you for inviting the back to the council on foreign relations. -- inviting me back to the council on foreign relations. your work is a significant contribution to our national discourse on the most pressing
foreign policy issues of our day. i am always glad to join with you in discussing those issues. if i kind of not off, either during my own speech ordering questions, -- nod off, either during my own speech or during questions, do not take it personally. the senate was in until 1:00, 1:30 a.m. there are some reporters who usually cover the senate. where were you last night? [laughter] troop presence in afghanistan. that a decision of the president was under attack in various quarters. i felt that the deduction -- the reduction of our forces, which was supposed to begin last july, and did it began last july, was vitally important, because it would provide a strong incentive for the afghans to take responsibility for their own security, which, in turn,
is essential to the success of our mission, and that mission is to help build a stable afghanistan, able and willing to fight off attempts by the taliban to retake control. two months ago, as jim said, i made my sixth trip to afghanistan. afghan, u.s., and other coalition forces are making significant military progress. security is improving in the south, and our military commanders are increasingly focused on the east where the insurgent threat remains resilience, particularly the threat from the haqqani network operating out of safe havens in pakistan. the capabilities of the afghan national security forces are growing both in quantity and quality. afghan army and police are almost 50,000 men stronger than
when we met here last year. afghan forces are conducting a greater proportion of the missions and are increasingly in the lead. just this week, "the new york times" reported that afghan troops led a lengthy, intends operation to clear insurgents from a key supply route in a province. we are succeeding in training the afghan army and other security forces to a higher level of effectiveness. and the afghan local police program has shown initial success. in that program, our special operations forces live with and trained afghan, local afghans -- and that is important -- that is selected by the village elders. their goal is to defend their own villages against the insurgents. finally, transition of secure the responsibility is moving forward -- security
responsibility is moving forward as afghan forces have taken the lead in several areas. afghan leaders continue to show they understand the urgency of preparing for afghan security forces taking the lead on security throughout afghanistan in 2014, a date set by president obama and karzai, a date endorsed by the international coalition. i have long believed that the taliban's worst nightmare is and afghanistan secured by a strong and effective afghan forces that have the support of the afghan people. that nightmare is becoming the taliban's reality. this transition to afghan control does not mean that the united states will abandon afghanistan. the strategic partnership agreements being negotiated between the united states and afghanistan will play an
important role in demonstrating to the afghan people and the neighbors of afghanistan that the united states intends to remain engaged in afghanistan and the region. now, of course, significant challenges remain. and if they are not effectively address, they could undermine security gains achieved at a great cost. first, the government of afghanistan needs to increase its legitimacy with the afghan people. it needs to improve government, improve services, and the corruption, improve inclusiveness, transparency, and in hear it -- and adherence to the rule of law. we should also not ignore the fact there has been some progress even in those areas. for instance, more than 2 million afghan girls are in school today compared to almost
none in 2001. infant mortality has fallen rapidly, and access to health care has expanded. surely, there is a long way to go. while we encourage and pressure the afghan government to provide good government, we cannot guarantee that. only the afghans can do that. hopefully the lessons of the arab spring have reached afghanistan. leaders who failed to deliver accountable and transparent governance lose their legitimacy and they are more and more funding that their political survival is at risk. even if the president karzai governance does not succeed without security, the greatest threat to security and afghanistan and the focus of my remarks this morning is that the threat posed by the safe havens that harbor in surgeons across the border in pakistan. the haqqani network in particular has used its
sanctuary in pakistan to launch deadly attacks on coalition forces in afghanistan. attacks by the operatives of the network include the attack on the hotel intercontinental in kabul in june that killed 21 people and the attack just last month on the u.s. embassy. the threat emanating from these safe havens is nto new. we have known about it for years and we repeatedly pressed the pakistanis to act. i have seen personally how pakistan's government has stalled and dissembled on this issue. i have repeatedly, personally urged the president, the prime minister, and the general, and the pakistani army chief of staff, in hearings both here
and in washington to act to eliminate these terrorist sanctuaries. typical of these experiences was the pakistani response during my august visit. i raised the issue of safe havens in pakistan. when we asked what the military had not gone into the area to eliminate these save havens, we heard the same excuses. about how the pakistani army was already over-committed elsewhere. i then pressed prime minister gilani to explain why. if pakistan for whatever reason can or will not clear out these safe havens, why is it that senior pakistan officials have not at least publicly condemned the deadly cross-border attacks
by the haqqanis? prime minister gilani said his government had publicly condemned these attacks. but he backed down when i asked him to provide examples of these public statements. i said, "send me the clipping." he said, "well, they are lower level officials who make those statements." what has been apparent for years is that pakistan's military intelligence, the isi, remains in contact with the haqqani network and provide support to this group. even as in surgeons engaged in attacks against our forces. the u.s. ambassador recently said in connection with the attack on the u.s. embassy that there was evidence linking the haqqani network to the pakistani government.
admiral mullen's testimony last month before my committee that the haqqani network acts as an arm of the pakistani isi was a sharp declaration by our top military officer who is known as a friend of pakistan. we owe it to our military, the men and women who put on the uniform of the united states, that when we send them into harm's way, that we challenge pakistan over its support for the extremist groups that are attacking our troops and afghan troops and civilians from their own pakistan territory. it is simply unacceptable for the united states to spend its blood and treasure so afghanistan does not once again become a breeding ground for militant extremists while
pakistan protect terrorists who cross the border to attack us. pakistan cannot evade its responsibility over its role in allowing and supporting these attacks. at the least, pakistan needs to condemn the attacks of the haqqanis in pakistan, and pakistani officials must end their denial of the plain truth. the head of the isi called the testimony baseless and denied the haqqani network was even in pakistan and claimed pakistan had not provided the haqqanis a penny or single bullet. the president wrote recently about the losses it to pakistan has suffered from extremist groups. then on terrorizing the
pakistani people, but he failed to mention, much less condemn, the attacks that haqqani and taliban extremists are conducting against our forces in afghanistan. so what actions are open to us to correct the situation? if pakistan will not take on that the threat from the haqqanis based in pakistan who attack our forces, then we should be prepared to take steps to defend our troops. it is consistent with established principles of international law of the united states to defend itself and to defend afghanistan against cross-border attacks by insurgents based in pakistan and to respond to those attacks. and to respond to those attacks. the recent report that a haqqanis reporter was killed in
strike, in an area that was off-limits, is an example of the kind of action that is overdue. we have the right, the target, the forces in afghanistan and in pakistan, but to target the people controlling those forces as well. as the secretary has said, the message that the pakistani need to know is that we will do everything we can defend our forces. when we do that, and predict that we will have strong support, bipartisan support in the u.s. congress. we should inform pakistan that it should not expect to normalize this relationship.
with the united states, as long as it provides a safe haven for violent extremist groups were used terrorists as proxy's against other countries. we may not be able to persuade pakistan that its activities are counterproductive and afford the security of the region. we must let them know that clearly as the second -- secretary clinton did yesterday, that it is a hindrance to a normal or relationship with the united states. the pakistanis have interfered with attempts regarding reconciliation in afghanistan obstructing peace talks unless they can control -- exercise control over the taliban group involved and control over the substance of the talks. obstruction of reconciliation efforts in afghanistan is also
an impediment. it is long past due for the united states to call the network for what it is and have the extremist group on the list. it should be listed alongside pakistan and taliban, and al qaeda as a foreign terrorist organization, keeping the haqqanis does not encourage the group to join the reconciliation process, nor has it prevented pakistani isi for continuing its support for the economy. this is a foreign terrorist burden -- and designating them as a foreign terrorist organization sends a message that we will respond to the report of the extremist organization nobody wants the
u.s. pakistan relationship to return to the early 1990's, when the u.s. is engaged. nowhere are the effects of that disengagement felt more strongly than in our bilateral military relations. a whole generation of pakistani offices had no contact with their u.s. counterparts through such programs as the military education and training program. this has contributed to anti- americanism among those now senior pakistani -- pakistanis in office. their right to say that a flawed relationship with pakistan is better than none at all. we do need to stay engaged with pakistan and try to act together with our interest
aline. we should attempt to understand the motivations of pakistan in is the concerns, even when we disagree with them. we should seek to build a bilateral relationship based on our shared interest and democratic dahlias, security and stability -- democratic values, security and stability. we need to improve a flawed relationship. the foreign minister of pakistan recently said that the united states in allegations and the isi and haqqanis connections, the united states would lose an ally. our response should be that the
only option that pakistan presents us is a choice between losing an ally and continuing to lose our troops, then we will choose the former. my thanks for the invitation and i would be happy to try to answer some of your questions. thank you. [applause] >> so much to talk about. to an early and vocal opponent, already in people are making
comparisons to what happened in libya to what happened in iraq. a few weeks of a joint nato air operation. is it a fair comparison to make? is it a policy template for the u.s., should we get involved in theory? we know the reasons why it would be more difficult. is this a new policy template we can apply to other countries? >> it is a template. it easily fits syria. i wish it did. syria as a dictator like libya. the reason i think it is a template is that it was an
operation that had international support. in the arab world by the arab league. second lane it was not led by s. we made a significant contribution to its success. it showed that nato can still be effective. i think that is very important. the one alliance in the world that has a worldwide impact and can impact other places. i think there are important strengths and the lessons to be learned. i give our president a lot of thoughtfulness in how he approached this issue.
he insisted that there be leaders that have international support. the reasons for its success, i can attribute to that plus the extraordinary way in which modern technology was used by the people, first and foremost in dealing with social networking. in the technology used in the military to have a real impact putting the boots on the ground, which is something we need to avoid a finance. all of those factors and aspects are really important. in syria, you cannot have international support for action, he did not have the support in the arab world. those are the most important factors i believe that contribute to the success.
>> another point that struck me as you watch those videos of the son of gaddafi kill. he was alive when he was taken. we do not know how it happened. the government claims he was shot in the crossfire. it seems difficult to believe to watch that happen, what does it say about the ability to run a government fairly and justly no extra judicial -- [unintelligible]
to watch that happen, what does this say about the ntc's ability to run a government fairly and justly if the immediate we do not know an awful lot about who they are. i do not know it is clear yet what direction they are going to take. there are risks they will move in the wrong direction, but there is a lot of evidence that there will be the potential for a government that will respect the rule of law, that will honor, at least to a far greater extent, clearly, than their predecessors, the human rights of their people. with the international community that was so important in support of this effort, we put as much -- we lean on the new government so they moved in the right direction. >> ok, pakistan.
admiral mullen got some grief from his comments, some saying that he went too far because of calling the haqqani network a variable arm of the isi. do you believe that? are they looking the other way and not doing enough? you believe they are actively supporting. >> they are. there is active support as well as allowing a safe haven to exist. there are intelligence reports and other direct support. my opening statement that morning that admiral mullin appeared in front of us was very, very similar to what he was saying. and others in our government, it was not as if what he was saying was so new but it was sharper than what the previously
said and was covered very, very well. he said exactly what he meant to say. i think a slight move away from that that we saw from the white house spokesman is not nearly as important or significant as what he said. >> in my own experience there, you see secretary clinton on the ground. something about the snake in the backyard does not only by your neighbor. the point being, these groups are going to threaten you, and the pakistani government. this state of denial in the country because from the top levels of government to taxi drivers, when you ask them about attacks from the taliban, they say it is probably the americans. that denial seems to infiltrate a very influential people. do in your experience do pakistani officials and military leaders get the threat that they can be in those cross hairs? do they get that point?
>> they clearly get the point that terrorists threaten them, because terrorists do threaten them. they have taken huge losses domestic and internal. i do not think they need to be taught or understand the lesson about -- >> but i am talking about an existential threat to their power. >> i think terrorism can be an existential threat to pakistan as a matter of fact. and what it produces and the reaction to it, if not strong, can be an existential threat. what they do not really except, obviously, is it that they are condoning the use of their land as a safe haven for terrorism and the relationship between part of their intelligence and
the haqqani network as well as the afghan taliban. that represents a threat to their relationship with us. i do not think they fully understand that. the denial that you refer to is that the denial of what the facts are both in terms of the relationship between the isi and between the facts that the haqqanis are located there. for there top officials to say that they are not even here in pakistan is kind of the epitome of denial. what they have done is bought time. they've tried to buy peace. they have tried to take a group which can threaten them, the haqqanis, and buy them off by saying we will let you operate from here and get you some support if you focus on the folks across the border and
leave us alone. that is what they have tried to do. will that end up putting them? it may or it may not -- will that end up buying them? -- biting thtem? it may or may not. >> what with that choice look like? -- what would that choice look like? what would our situation look like if we chose to end or significantly reduced the relationship? how do you withdraw from afghanistan? >> the drawdown in afghanistan is set for the next couple of years. there was some strong opposition to it particularly among some of the republicans who thought it was a mistake to set these dates in order to focus the
afghan government on its responsibility and promote the chances of success because it is the taking of responsibility of their own security, an army in afghanistan which is more effective and larger. its is the best hope of defeating the taliban in afghanistan. that is not your question. >> what does it look like -- >> in afghanistan? >> in afghanistan and pakistan. what does policy look like without help? >> much more difficult without pakistan's help. it is not possible. it would be much more difficult. a much smaller number of u.s. troops and support of the
continuing support of an afghan army that is stronger and better equipped, better trained, better led. hopefully with a government that is moving in the right direction to end corruption, there is nothing that we can guarantee. only if they can do that themselves. i think it is in their own self interest as they respond to the needs of their people that more effectively than they have. that is a matter of very clear self interest on the part of any government including the afghan government. so the next major decision in terms of our presence will be the long term strategic relationship which is now being discussed and negotiated and also the way in which the reduction of our troops will continue. at what pace, between the end
of next year when all of our forces, all the additional 33,000 forces will have been removed, and the reduction of the 70,000 forces that would be left after the removal of the 33,000 forces. that would take place between 2012 and 2014 when the turnover responsibility for the whole country would take place. that does not mean all of the 70,000 troops would be removed by any stretch of the imagination and does not determine the pace of the removal during that time. those are issues that need to be resolved through negotiations. it is really important for a number of reasons that it occur. the afghan army is the only national entity that is respected. you have an enemy that you
detest. those two elements, an afghan army that has got public support and an enemy that is hated it should be able to be enough if that army is strong enough and well equipped enough to provide security. but again, it will be up to that government. >> you are saying that our afghan military presence will become our fourth hold against pakistan. if we make good on that threat -- is it an empty threat? knowing that security and afghanistan is an extremely depending, that if it becomes an unembarrassed support for those networks but let happen
becomes more of a matter of policy for them. how messy does that look? is the u.s. really ready to follow through on that threat. >> what do we do about the haqqanis? how do we address the cross- border threat now? there, we have begun to use drones successfully against some haqqani leaders. appropriately. if this report is accurate, because i am not allowed to say things that are still classified. it can have a real effect. secondly, we have under international law the right to respond to attacks by artillery. i think we will. if we listen to the report of what the secretary of state said yesterday in pakistan, fairly soon, we will see a more
direct response or effective response and a stronger response to those attacks across the border against us. her words yesterday were pretty clear, that the international effort to squeeze the haqqani network on both sides of the border "will be more apparent that that is ahead." the fact that you have this a visit by our officials to pakistan yesterday is the indicator of a clear statement, first of all. i hope that the pakistanis will see that it is not acceptable for them to be a safe haven for attacks on us. secondly, i think it is a
statement to them that we have the international right to respond to attacks from their country across the border, and that we intend to do so. >> time to open it up to questions. wait for the microphone, and introduce yourself, name and affiliation. we should of close to a half hour. standing in the far back. >> thank you very much. we have nine hours of live broadcast between pakistan and afghanistan. my question is given the tension and distrust between islamabad and kabul, washington it is expected to withdraw complete by 2014.
thank you. >> you are asking what does the u.s. -- >> what is expecting when it withdraws troops from afghanistan? >> what will be the role of islamabad -- >> what washington is expecting of islamabad given the tension and distrust. >> i think it is the same thing as what we expect now. number one, that their country will not be used as a safe haven. number two, that they will not interfere with the efforts of a three integration of the taliban to end their attacks on troops and government and citizens inside afghanistan. and hopefully play a constructive role in those discussions. they obviously have an interest. that is not the issue.
pakistan clearly has an interest in what goes on in afghanistan because it can have an effect on them. from their view, it has an impact in terms of their security. so there are going to play a role and will play a role. the role that we are not going to accept is the role of the obstructing those discussions which can take many forms. one of the forms it has taken is not permitting taliban living in pakistan but who are afghanis to go back to afghanistan to participate in those discussions. the want to control the
discussions, the negotiations, and they are not going to be able to do that. can they control them? they are not going to be able to control them. it is not acceptable that they frustrate them taking place. i do not see 2014 as being a point of change between our expectations of what we expect from islamabad. i just do not see that. things will change in 2014 in terms of the security control in afghanistan and us becoming much less of a security force in afghanistan. id will not be the end of our presence. that will be negotiated. it will be far reduced from the number of troops that we have
now and far reduced from that 70,000 level that we will have at the end of next year. >> in the four wrote. -- front row. >> thank you. i wanted to change tack a little and ask you about the subject that was probably keeping you on the senate floor last night, our current budget situation. military leaders have spoken out about agencies because they recognize the value of preventive action because it is far less expensive to engage around the world instead of military terms. as we find ourselves as a result of the budget control act under a security cap where the budget has pitted against the department of defense as we have decreasing resources to work with, i am curious as to what your thoughts are as how we get a mixed right between investment through civilian agencies and our military during times of the increase in
resources? >> number one, recognizing the importance of those efforts that you referred to. they can not be shortchanged. i thought secretary gates was a spectacular in the area cannot recognizing the importance of those activities outside the defense department -- in that area, recognizing the importance of those activities outside the defense department. this will be determined by revenues. that is the battle. i know it is being fought right now, whether or not the republicans are going to be able to move away from the rigid, ideologically driven position which is at the tea party position which is so far dominating the republican party in this era, that they're not
be any additional revenue. in the absence of additional revenue, those of across-the- board cuts take place in the the defense area, and that is going to be the battleground. so what will determine the level of support for the areas that you have a major concern in and rightly so will not be the relationship between funding between the defense through the economic support, the state department support, and those other programs. it will be whether or not the republicans see that you cannot do serious deficit reduction without additional revenues. you cannot do it. the only way you can do it is by decimating programs across the board in a-, irrational way where the triggers pulled are
then implemented without any prioritization. just one other thought about that is that the -- i believe it at that. my answers have been too long. i look at my staff back there. hey, brent. >> thank you for that powerful and comprehensive statement. there is one element of the relationship with pakistan which you alluded to but i was like a little more, and that is pakistan's attitude toward the united states and feeling abandoned in the 1990's. that is not the first time they have felt abandoned by the u.s.
it is happened two or three times. we are right in their reliance on the haqqanis as its regular -- irregular forces. now we are telling them they are your enemy, and that is correct. we are saying go after them now, and by the way in two years, we are out of their. that seems to me this is the background of that relationship. how do we convince them that this time we are not going to leave them? that we are not going to abandon pakistan again? >> first of all, we have made some serious mistakes relevant to pakistan. one of them had to do with some planes which we sold to them and did not deliver them.
i do not know -- i do not claim to be courageous at the time. i would have to go back and look at my own votes. whether i met the test of courage or not is not the point of. i thought it was just terribly wrong for us to be selling them something and then not delivering a while we are hanging onto their money. that has recently been corrected. also, we are not leaving the area of. your question i think contains both questions about are we leaving afghanistan. we are not going to do either. if pakistan gives us that choice of losing an allied if we continue to speak the truth about the relationship of pakistan and their isi to the events across the border, if we continue to speak the truth, we got to protect our troops.
if the price of that is making our relationship with pakistan much more difficult, as chairman of the armed services committee, i have to tell you that i do not love that choice. but that is the choice. we are going to choose our troops. we have to choose our troops. we are going to continue to try where we can with the interests are mutual to work with the pakistanis. we are not leaving the area. i do not know if they want us in the area or out of it. i think they are ambivalent. was a they want us in or out, we are going to reduce our presence. but we are not leaving
afghanistan anymore than we are going to abandon our efforts to have a decent relationship with pakistan. >> in the middle there. >> thank you. retired state department. are we going to compel pakistan to change its behavior? i think it can be argued that however wrong-headed the pakistani behavior is, many pakistanis believe the haqqani is giving them a strategic presence in afghanistan, the instrument to a long-term ability to play a role, and
however wrong this is, it is clearly a very strong held belief among certain pakistanis. set against that, the threat of losing the u.s. as an allied will only strengthen the belief that it is important to do that. that is a very powerful thing to try to overcome however wrong they may be. we can send drones against the haqqani. are we going to send troops into the area? how are we going to make them change their tune? the more we squeeze them, the more they believe they have to
have that strategic presence. >> how do you push a change in behavior? >> you cannot force them to do anything. i think there has been too much u.s. arrogance over the ages about our trying to dominate or decide. they are going to act in their self interest. we have to, number one, persuade them hopefully as to what their self interest is. hopefully they will see it as a normalized relationships with the u.s. and see that that is in their self interest. then we also have to be clear and honest that we will act in our self-interest as well. we are going to protect our troops. under international law, we can do that. i think we should do that. artillery being fired across the border is not going to be responded to is wrong. it is going to be responded to. we are not simply going to have artillery coming in from
pakistan and not respond. the response can be done in the number of ways. i do not think people are talking about sending troops into pakistan, but the use of drones has been effective and there is also the use of a counter-artillery. i agree that you cannot force pakistan and the idea that we can do that and some of the rhetoric that implies that we can do that i think plays into the hands of those who are extremists. i think some of that rhetoric, the dominating rhetoric not just with pakistan but other parts of the world. is so important that we acted in an international community at our back and with us to avoid that use of the rhetoric of domination which is too often characterized and used by the terrorists against us, saying that america wants to
take over afghanistan. that is the rhetoric that is used against us. id has to be their self interest that we appeal to, and it has to be our self interest which we must pursue as well and not act as though as we are somehow older than thou. we believe that our self interest is the interest that people in this world impart, that the values are values in which move this world in the right direction. that has to be at the core of our interests, the values that we pursue.
because they have a tremendous, powerful effect around the world. >> many of the things you have said about pakistan remind me what was said about saudi arabia. that behavior did not change until 2004 when these attacks started targeting the saudi oil family. when you speak of pakistan, do they need an attack that truly threatens them? that shows them that they have to take us seriously? >> attacks from terrorism? they have lost tens of thousands of people from terrorism. a prime minister from terrorism. >> that truly threatens their power. what breaks through that mentality?
>> what breaks through, i think, is for them to see what terror has on them and even though at the moment they think piece from the haqqanis in terms of the threat from them that is not necessarily a lasting. and the value of the relationship of with the u.s. is a real value to them. we have to make it a real value to them. >> here in the fourth row. >> thank you. my question is about education issues. the secretary will go to japan and hold a meeting in tokyo.
what do you expect the meeting about the progress of -- >> what location? >> stem relocation issue. >> is it marine location? >> [unintelligible] >> okinawa. senator webb and i recently went to open now well on this issue, to japan, on this question of our basis in okinawa. it is a major problem that has been festering for a long time. id is not the presence of troops in okinawa. is the fact that there is an over-presence that is creating a real problem because it is too heavy of the present.
-- heavy of presence. physically, it is taken over huge chunks of the island that are populated. we are welcome. they like us. they want us there. but we have to find a new place to base our marines. the new location up north is unreal. it is far too costly. it is not going to happen. we have to be honest. id is not going to happen. we have to find a different path to relocate some of our marines from that facility where they currently are. there are some suggestions that we have made to the pentagon. i would hope that secretary leon panetta and i think you were referring to his visit to japan will tell the japanese we are very close allies.
whatever we are going to do, we are going to do to get their. this will not be a unilateral shift of the u.s. we have a plan that is unworkable. it is simply too expensive. we ought to be honest with each other. for some reason, it is difficult politically and i am not sure why. i do not know why it is difficult politically to say that we agreed on a plan. hey, it is not working. let's change the planned. there is a sensitivity. who goes first? this is an ally facing a common problem. it is not such a problem. people are trying to solve the location problem of the marine's. number one, we should deal with it frankly, together, not unilaterally, and be honest
about the impossibility of our current plan. >> the gentleman in front here. >> senator, based on your long experience and six visits, what do you say is a possibility or how do you see of the possibility of persuading the pakistanis to come along our way. when we were dealing with the soviet union into the arms control business, we knew we
could not force them to do anything but we found a certain pressure points that we could apply. what pressure points do we have to apply against pakistan to come along, persuade them to come our way? >> if they see the relationship between us and them as a plus, either economically or militarily, that relationship cannot be normal as long as their land is used as a base of attack against us and the afghans and the coalition. that is number one. number two, there is a significant amount of support that we provide which is in jeopardy because of this threat from their territory against our troops. that support is on hold essentially. there are different forms of. in general, the kind of financial support is on hold
because you cannot have a relationship where we are supporting a country that is actively as well as passively both helping to kill our troops. our troops are being killed by folks who have a safe haven in pakistan. when the government will not even speak out against that let alone take them on which makes it impossible for us to continue the economic and military financial support in a normal way it. that has been put on hold by the administration. ultimately, it will be their own self interest, the perception of whether or not they can distinguish between the distinguish between the terrorists who attacked them
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on