tv Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 10, 2013 1:00am-6:01am EDT
it was a significant shift from spending $2 billion-$20 billion in the blink of an eye and then $60 billion over 10 years. we were planning on leaving by the end of september of 2003. thus, there was no commitment to consultation with the plan to short stay. when we shifted to a significant infrastructure based rebuilding program, the plan evolved within and among the u.s. contractors that were identified and was developed by the coalition provisional authority. it did not a gauge -- engage with iraq he sent us. aqis and us.
what can they do? what can they sustain? on the security front, a key is ensuring sufficient security and not absolute security. it is a proportional metrics. the more security environment, the more substantial the project you can pursue. >> to follow up on that, in iraq , the assessments being done about security and engagement, in the aftermath, those assessments were being done by our ambassador and those assessments were being done by the generals on the ground. where are they on this proposal. do they feel that they would generals or massacres feel that they would have benefited i having this? thehe generals or ambassadors feel that they would have benefited i having this? >> he supports the idea of
having it. >> when the u.s. is operating ambassador in iraq and with the u.s. operates elsewhere, it is ambassador who heads the effort in the country. the commanding general heads the defense operations. understand what was said. this would it fit in command? >> the mission is discrete and will to find. clarity will provide certainty to both agencies and the contractors. it would be somewhat like fema.
its mission is to oversee the relief or reconstruction at 230 -- activity in the affected country. the president would declare it over. the purported chain would be like mine. reporting to the secretary of defense and the secretary of state and national advisor. >> when would we hit that point in syria? in afghanistan, at what point has that designation been made? yria, once we decide the decision is appropriate for us, that is when you have a government in damascus or any margin government that we know we can work with and conditions on the ground are sufficient for us to go in. to make that call, you need to have experienced professionals on the ground and hopefully offer syria as well to
that express political advice that is needed to make that decision. that is why you need a core of professionals devoted to this type of problem. it is widespread around the world. without this core of professionals, we are not able to make the decision of when there is a government we can work with? shouldn't it be much more that goes into the discussion of when to get involved or to wait until there is a government we can work with? >> we should be involved as soon as we see a crisis brewing. we should put our intelligence assets and are best professionals on the ground to assess what is happening. professionalsse in order to make these decisions? looking at our experience in iraq and afghanistan is that it would be helpful if he had this type of analysis before political
leaders decided to go in in this very serious way. casescisions in both proved to be false. thank you. vets isur iraq recognized. >> thank you. i think the big thing we want to know is not should we be involved, but how to do it either? egypt there is a term while -- turmoil. i think it is important that the u.s. stays engaged with foreign aid as they go through this time of instability. i think it is important to icognize that in iraq, again think there were mistakes made in postwar. i think we should have gone in
with more troops. we should have had a plan. we should've had a plan for law enforcement. we should've gone on tv and said qiat if the work with the ira government, continue to go to work because you have a job. this, something i want to explore is what is the difference between what happened in germany and japan post-world saw in iraq?at we is it reasonable to expect any kind of development aid of ground that can succeed in a highly unstable environment? >> that is a core lesson from that youafghanistan must have sufficient security before engaging in substantial rebuilding reconstruction activity and development and aid. that costs us billions of dollars and too many lives. we issued a report last summer
lives were lost while individuals were involved in reconstruction related at tivoli. better planning and better capacity and better integration among the agencies would have averted the kind of things that we saw. and implement effective oversight. that way you could be averted in syria. >> thank you. our occupation in germany and japan excepted -- succeeded because our residents was a -- presence was accepted. statue fell,addam
did we have the legitimacy at that link? point?that g t cplexity of o, even when te down, i believe that we had a chance we could have established some legitimacy. we could've established law and order. we welcome those to continue working in the government. there are many fundamental mistakes that we have made. mistakes because we were not sensitive to the culture of the location. even had we done everything right, it would be difficult than in germany and japan. i will give one example from japan. there was a critical decision not to remove the emperor of
japan. emperor sent to the japanese people, cooperate with these americans. we had no such wisdom in iraq. >> you're suggesting we should have a saddam hussein as president? >> no. we took out tojo. that is a very different kind of fish. >> thank you for that question. learned.ortant lessons we are naïve if you think americans never have to be in that situation. thank you for your hard work. looking forward at where we are, my big concern is number 2014, they year two full out of afghanistan was pulled out of a outhe year to pull afghanistan was pulled out of a hat. when you look at afghanistan today, something like 60% of
afghanistan are under the age of 20. an amazing young demographic. they are waking up in afghanistan. the military has control of the entire country. it is dandy against resurging taliban. forceis -- this is a against resurging taliban. when we look back at the united states and our gang kids or whatever are reading history books, they will look at this finite and now on of time. they will look and see what america did with its position of power. to either lead to a world of oros or russian leadership will america be that shining city on the hill? i yield back. >> thank you for your service. >> i would say to my friend from illinois that i appreciate his fingering some of the early
stakes that were proved to be catastrophic. we have accused the ambassador with way too much power with no lateral decisions that undercut military and the state department for having to have our country -- that documentsk this. you and i have traveled to iraq together. two things and we have to be concise -- two things that came up in that visit that stayed with me. the idea that the military was going to become a distribution entity. it is one thing to have some small things to fix a
problem here and bolster the role of rebuilding communities and not just being seen as occupiers and invaders, but this rubber ballooned with little scrutiny. part of your final report if you could talk about that. second, i remember when we were traveling in a limited way around baghdad. it was the story of a power plant or purification plants that we built. we give no thought to the capacity of piping in baghdad. we have this brand spanking, shiny, new thing we could point to and returned on the switch and tens of thousands of baghdad water pipes burst. they were not retrofitted to handle this new capacity.
there were examples like that were we did not get it right. maybe it was because we did not have the right people on the project. i wonder if you can talk about that. >> thank you. ,learly as audits demonstrate -- nded far beyond that is a good idea. help address hearts and mind issues. we hadppened instead was projects like the baghdad ,nterprise that ballooned up including a painting of a mural --t entire project certainly
that is great work if you can get it. it didn't advance our national security interest locally. it instead hinder them. snappingresponded by -- capping projects at $1 million. that should be done at the pentagon. --y should be program of the ensure training is done. on the water treatment system, it was the largest project that we did in iraq. the civil infrastructure project. as we documented in our evaluation of the, it was only operating at 20% after turnover. happens example of what when you do not carefully consult and effectively oversee and ensure that proper execution
is happening at the local level. it was beyond their means. as you pointed out, there is so , it is impossible to document. by contrast, the parallel water , it was aproject smashing success. it provides fresh water to the people of the capital city. why? because they committed to it. sustainment is a huge issue in future operations. >> to see. -- thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. gentlemen, appreciate your time. we talk about fraud, waste, and abuse and we talk about transparency and oversight.
we talk about this a lot, but we never hold the person accountable. with the money we look at spending in iraq, i think $6 billion is what we have come in close to $100 billion in afghanistan, without the ,versight, when we go back american people are tired of that. we have got to change our foreign policy. germany, they surrendered. no one surrendered here. you have an unstable government and trying to rebuild is almost insanity. we need a clear, defining goal. now we're looking at syria. alan asked specifically what you see as the role -- i want out specifically what you see as a role of the government in the middle east? different way we can
approach the middle east instead of going in there and bombing and people dying and we have to look at rebuilding with the waste, fraud, and abuse? get the question is if you could take us a scenario of how money howiven to this agency and it is tracks we do not get into this again -- i think you will be involved in summer in the future and i would not like to see that. i think the men and women need to stay here and make america strong. you asking the question if we could provide stability in the middle east. i think it is safe to say that it is beyond our means to provide stability in each and every country in the middle east. >> i agree. >> we will bankrupt ourselves if we try. and wepromote stability
can also is specific countries at specific times make a specific difference was that we have to be careful before we go in. we need to have excellent intelligence and have goals that are sufficiently limited so we can achieve them. that means you have to look carefully every time before we try to intervene. we have a serious core of professionals and leaders with wisdom and humility. thank you. co would do.hat uso it would reduce the costs and oversee such operations by ensuring that there was at that planning.
it would not rely on coronation on the ground as operation begins, which is what occurred in iraq and afghanistan and did not work. that coronation must move to integration so that there is a capacity that exist before the operation begins. and it is done at a time to make sure that there are controls in place so that the projects and programs succeed in the fraud, waste, and abuse are avoided. the army corps of engineers did a program where they are in the pipelines and it was billions of dollars. you are saying that we had to rely on experts and things like that? how do you get that question why it is not acceptable that we are money and be have to tell taxpayers to send more money -- heidi do you get that? we areit acceptable that spending money and we have to tell taxpayers to send more
money? >> accountability is key. >> who is held accountable? they called state defense and aid to the table and asked, who is in charge of the rebuilding program? i could not provide an answer. --t is what usoco there is no wonder now when nothing goes well. is not centralized or coordinated. there is no one identifying with accountability for the operation. >> i yield back. >> thank you, madam chair. andcontrast of the quality service of our brave men and women compared to the conduct is
released arc. it is very disturbing. role does the pervasive in hision in iraq play reconstruction effort? as of september 2012, and anticorruption effort despite the support for the fight against corruption, apparently little change or change it thousand three and 2012 and that -- apparently little change or 003change at all between 2 and 2012. i would like to hear from you of that impacts the
reconstruction efforts. i would also like to hear from the police program. wasted millions of dollars to aqi police that baghdad to not need or want. how did that happen? finally, how you conclude that this new agency would somehow provide the kind of money and oversight that we have a right to expect? i think the american people sees crumbling werastructure in cities -- do not have the resources to rebuild our own country and we waste in iraq. properly a source of great rage from the american people. >> thank you. the corruption issue in iraq
capacity to limit its to grow and for making progress out of the situation in which it is currently mired. the cheap oversight entity told me when i interviewed him last year that corruption has become an institution in iraq. it takes the form of money laundering. that drains the economy of its resources and keeps the majority of the population in poverty- stricken circumstances. the police department row graham failed to succeed because of the lack of consultation with the minister of interior. when we did the audit, we met with the minister and he said to us that it was shaped and formatted in a way that do not
really meet his needs. audit,e issuance of the it was concluded early this year because of the lack of -- this late into the program, there was a consultation problem. would address the fraud, byte, and abuse issues ensuring accountability and transparency throughout the process. most importantly it would promote integration. if you accept that and accept the fact that our current system is not promoting or advancing capacity, and i think reform is necessary. there is no other proposal on the table. there is no other office in place within the executive ranch that is advancing that interest. that interest is ultimately tied
to our national security architect for protecting your interest in the region and not implementing this kind of reform would leave us worse off. >> a follow-up question. in 2012.was done conductedcy options by the central bank and up to $800 million was laundered money transport illegally under false pretenses. this presents the possibility that up to $40 billion was leaving the country annually because of corruption. what percentage of that is american taxpayer money? >> that is all iraq money -- oil and gas money. it is not u.s. money. 'sat comes from an audit, iraq
oversight entity. >> thank you. i yield back. >> another wonderful iraq vet is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. dialogue. this is one of the things that i think needs to happen. what is interesting coming to the table, i think there is an .nteresting correlation there are different aspects of this. owing into iraq -- going into iraq as he did, it is not the best way to go about it. question i have and i think one of the core professionals that you mentioned -- you keep mentioning usoco. and -- the state
department involvement usually would be higher come especially -- is that something that you see? the state department, if we are hiogher? we need to be >> yes. the state department was given policy authority over the reconstruction program. if authority in one agency and the contract capacity in another agency. i saw him repeatedly on the ground that it led to friction and that led to failure -- i saw it repeatedly on the ground and that led to friction and that led to failure. >> that has been clear of a lot of things going on in syria. our job is to go in and help those -- and we have got a
concern here. the very things that you're talking about when you start looking at syria or egypt or anywhere else, is as being involved militarily is different than iraq and afghanistan. co concern goes back to if uso is implemented, what is your estimated costs? >> $25 million per year. >> i have looked at the appendix in the draft bill. is it a standalone? where is the direct report? >> it reports to the secretary of defense and the national security advisor. >> that i see as an issue. report to the secretary of state and the secretary of defense. it makes sense. operations.ique it is a creature of the modern era. >> and also directed by the president, correct? >> that is correct.
with senate confirmation. the president could fire that person? >> that is right. >> one of the last things that you stated was planning in advance and planned cumbrian sibley and have a backup plan ready to go. plan for contingencies and have a backup plan ready to go. in world war ii, with all the history that you big, and the first couple of years we were winning the war and then came the as akin to the reconstruction. what i found troubling in iraq is that things were suddenly there and what do we do and how do we do this? they were sending him to be construct. we will not discuss the actual reasons -- but that is a concern for me. be looking at usoco being an agency at the front end?
for military involvement needs to be there on a large scale? would you repeat the problems of iraq and go in before the fighting is over or are we looking at something where they would finish it and secure it and then begin rebuilding the assess? >> it would be the latter. -- thet to make sure soco is tooal of u provide national command with options. a range of choices with for guard to the nation -- nature of the aid that you provide to country x syria not limited by circumstances. in iraq we plan to liberate and leave. we plan to be gone by september. within six weeks of arriving come we shifted to occupy and rebuild with no structure in place to sustain such an operation.
>> i appreciate your work. i think the concern looking forward is implementation of usoco what we call a different environment with iraq standing alone and then have the smaller areas of how that would fit in long-term? those are things we need to discuss. that is the hot spot right now that we had to deal with. it also concerns me deeply that we are discussing those numbers and taxpayer dollars. his are dollars that men and women do not understand when we send overseas and we do not have a defined role. -- these are dollars that men and women do not understand when we send it overseas and we do not have a defined role. that has contributed to the distrust that americans feel. we have to restore that trust. i yield back. >> very good.
excellent point. we have been joined by the ranking member of the full committee, mr. ingle, thrilled to have you. doing all right? >> thank you. son for his to your service. and also to your family. my son also served in usaid. this does not make me an expert in the military or in the state department. i want to say that. i try to have many discussions with my son about this. incidentally. bar you can see he has changed his direction. --e is what i want to say when i read this memo from our chair lady, thank you for the
memo, one thing that jumps out says thathat sigir dod manages an amount of the reconstruction fund. that should be a red alert that duty should not be managing reconstruction. i am very proud of the military. you mentioned how they are professional and trained. but i question whether or not their training is in redevelopment. my son trade to be an altar officer,artillery which he was. job anddifferent training to do redevelopment. i think that is one of the mistakes he made. having the defense department manage reconstruction.
number two, you talked about what i wouldbe respectively suggest is that usocoof that bureaucracy, , i think one of the failings of government is that every time an agency doesn't seem to be doing well, instead of looking to see what the real problem is, we decide to create a new problem. reflect --t to respectfully suggest is that maybe usaid is not find it? have thedoes not authority it needs. maybe if they were in charge every the construction rather than the military, maybe we
would have a different outcome. i'm not sure that either usaid fully funded or professionalized integrating that we would like it to be, that our reconstruction efforts were worthwhile either in iraq or afghanistan. we could save that for another day. thank you. you raise a valid question. we use the brock receives we have. the bureaucracies that we have. conceivably you can re-create usaid. an agency based almost entirely on contractors, you would have to hire many more professionals.
you would have institute a cultural change. the assistance community in the united states and around the world believes very much in assistance for assistance sake as opposed to assistance and direct support of american national interest. there are wonderful professionals at usaid. that is not the type of culture that would do the operation correctly. given how usaid functions today, wonderful job. you are probably need faster and more efficient by creating a usoco then tried to re-create it with usaid. did you want to comment? >> i concur. chiefly as functions a contracting out of its work. about 80%. to observe it within one agency
has been attempted at state. ultimately, policing it within any one agency whether the state infuse thed operation with that particular bureaucracy biases. by pulling it out, even on a new culture that ensures your key point that it would be that reconstruction mission. i totally concur with that. it would be to ensure civilian lead for our operations. almost ais bidding war food be the chair of the rebuilding money. who would be the
chair of the rebuilding money. >> their see. -- thank you. thank you, men and chair. -- madam chair. general petraeus was correctly ittical and i am curious was assumed that those folks would not have wanted to participate in a new iraqi government are was there evidence that led to that? >> i think it was influence by the iraq leadership and the cheyenne leadership that was pushing the removal of former sunnis -- and the shia leadership those pushing the removal of former sunnis. that led to the essentially as has been described to a firing
of the government. the capacity was difficult to fill and took years of training and government assistance. >> appreciate that. rule of law efforts that were undertaken and i remember , we sents there detainees there and what not. was there any measurable success in the time and resources that we have put into in the rule of law while we were there? i know you said it deteriorated recently. i know what was going on in '07 and '08. was that a failure? was also the chair of the council in iraq. it indicated he was satisfied with the support on a number of rule of law projects, especially for that major crimes task
force. 44 judges were killed in iraq over the last 10 years. was much intimidation of the judiciary are by terrorist -- of the judiciary evidence by terrorist. over time, that security improved. >> in terms of the corruption, there were some serious examples of waste of taxpayer money. is it the case that sometimes , thatrruption is embedded to thethere no limits operations it can achieve in rooting out corruption question if that is the case, do you think that is part of what we found when we got there? a culture of
corruption. to some extent, it affects the region. formalizednized a groep system of patroness -- formalized a corrupt system of patronage. me, theraqs have told culture is constitutionalize it in the system now and much is being lost to money laundering. it is their duty, their system and sovereignty to address it. they are beginning to address it. too much has been lost over the last 10 years. the surf project, i remember that was being done when i was there. you seem to me that there were some benefits. were seemed to me there some benefits. i did not have a chance to be a report every praise that. do you think that was in effect
use?ed -- effective >> our special report on that demonstrated significant -- when they were manage at a limited level. that was the initial plan. there should be 25-50,000. tens of thousands of projects at that level accomplished. especially the local brands. they help the local businesses account bush -- accomplish projects. when they became $10 million projects and extended beyond the evidence -- plate waseployed elements, there lots of oversight.
-- loss of oversight. toyou would not advise us get involved in nationbuilding type of an enterprise in that region right now? carefulnk we should be before we make any decisions at the present time. >> thank you. i appreciate the witnesses. >> thank you. -- recognizeave mr. vargas of california. >> thank you. i think i have figured out the button here. thank you. >> you are supposed to learn that in your second year. [laughter] orit took me about two three. thank you, madam chair. the information that you provided, i think for most americans when he think every building, you think of the marshall plan. i certainly do. one of the things that you bring
, you think ofort the lessons learned. you focus on small programs and projects. the marshall plan began -- it did not begin right after the war ended. the marshall plan did not begin until two years after the war ended and it was because we had that fear of the spread of soviet communism. i looked at the numbers, because i recall the numbers being gigantic, and we spent $13 billion when we had a gdp of $258 billion. it was a rather large amount of money. there was controversy with it, but at the same time people understood and the american people got behind it and said those are our allies, they are enemies, but they will be allies long term.
i appreciate the timing. the second part is important, that europe was going to be friendly. this does not seem to be the case with iraq and afghanistan. it has the american people at some unease because every dollar we give to israel, we say it is fantastic and they are going to be friends, but every dollar you spent on iraq or afghanistan it does not feel right. >> two points. on the marshall plan, you're right. we spent two years planning for it. that was the element of planning to a successful rebuilding program and it is proven to the success of the marshall plan. also curious, the marshall plan's operational entity reported to two cabinet secretaries, so there is
precedent for that. with regard to receptivity of the local populace him and there is a lesson from iraq on that, there were two rebuilding programs in effect in iraq. the one in kurdistan, the northern three provinces, were successful. that is reductive of your core report that insuring local stability, local consultation, local engagement are key to a successful program and projects. >> how about you, ambassador? >> there is no question that our intervention in germany and japan was successful even before
the marshall plan. that is because as we have all mentioned, the japanese and germans accepted our presence as legitimate in the wake of their defeat. in iraq, that was never accepted except among the kurds, and they look to us as natural friends. the shia were repressed under saddam, but they did not see us as friends. our intervention in iraq was going to be much more difficult in the post-military phase because we were not accepted. >> that is the unease that the american people feel. there is a real unease that we have as americans that we are spending so much money there that in a few years, when we leave, they are not going to be our friends. they are going to see the world differently than we do, and our
allies in the region are going to be their enemies. they are not going to line up on the same side. >> that is the reason why we need to be cautious as we decide to engage these countries. >> any other comment? >> usoco would insure caution because it would offer options. usoco would provide accountability and transparency that i think would assuage those just concerns the american people have about their dollars being wasted in these operations. >> thank you. >> thank you, and we thank our excellent witnesses for wonderful testimony, and to conclude our subcommittee, i will read into the record the seven final lessons from iraqi based on the final report from the inspector general.
number one, create an integrated military office to plan and be accountable for contingency rebuilding activities during some stabilization operations, number two, to begin rebuilding after establishing sufficient security and focus on small programs and projects, three, ensure full host country engagement in project selection, possibly through loans and sustain completed projects after their transfer. four, securing commitments to share costs, possibly through-- five, require robust oversight of sro activities, six, preserve and refine programs developed in iraq like the provincial team reconstruction program that
produced success when used judicially. and seven, plan in advance, plan comprehensively, in an integrated fashion, and have backup plans ready to go. excellent, gentlemen. we appreciate your testimony. we look forward to working with you in the months ahead. with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. >> thank you, madam chairman. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> in a few moments, tuesday's confirmation hearing of james comey to lead the fbi. policy.at, u.s. trade air thehat, we will re- committee hearing on the iraq reconstruction. >> on the next "washington be joined withl representative peter welch and representative chris gibson. in light of the plane crash in , airlineisco last week
safety regulations affecting foreign carriers flying into the u.s.. our guest is the former transportation department inspector general. in our spotlight magazine series, the national review about the small town that is the home of remington guns. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on c- span 3. the house ways and means committee talk about the recent decision to delay penalties for the employer mandate portion in the healthcare law. last week, the treasury department announced the requirements and tax penalties would apply in 2015 etc. 2014 as originally expected. then the senate agriculture
the chineseoke to regarding the purchase of smithfield foods. >> the problem was -- he did not theory, natural selection could never have worked. a white cat and a black cat. a black cat being provide you with advantages. at the blended theory of mixing things like gin and tonic, the black tack and the white cat, you would get a great cap. the gray cat may to a white cat and then you have a lighter shade of the gray cat. it gets diluted. the black advantage would disappear.
after words" and the -- akes made on historic on c-span 2. >> fbi director nominee james comey discussed programs that monitor online and phone conversations and how to deal with counterterrorism. he had his confirmation hearing before the two dictionary senate committee. he was he was also asked about enhanced interrogation techniques and drums and his tenure at the justice department. and his tenure at the justice department. i want everyone to be able to watch comfortably. anyone stands up and blocks the view will be removed. againstthey are for or
the possession i or what any other senator might take, or for or against the position that james comey may take, that person will be removed. i'm sure that everyone will act in the quorum. i just want everyone to understand what the ground rules are. rules.re the ground how senatorsa would vote. more importantly, i want the american public to have a chance to be heard. today as we know, we will consider the nomination of james comey junior to be the seventh
director of the federal bureau of investigation. the current director, robert mueller, started a week for the terrorist attacks of september 11. we know the world has changed dramatically in that time. we have often debated how best to ensure our national security a protecting freedom and liberty and privacy rights that define us as a great nation. today.bate is alive his confirmation hearing provides another opportunity to evaluate existing policy and to correct our course. few positions have as much impact on our national security as a director of the fbi. with thedy continues presence nominee, the senate president korten role in that debate in that debate begins here in this -- the senate has
an important role in that debate and that debate begins in here. he has had an astounding career in law enforcement and served as deputy attorney general. he served as a u.s. attorney for the -- under george president bush. he has worked in the private sector. when he appeared before this committee in 2007, they described the germanic hospital confrontation with a white house official. -- the dramatic hospital confrontation with a white house official. then the same program -- nsa program was illegal. he showed current and independence by standing firm against this attempt to undercut
the rule of law. since the terrorist attacks in september 11, the government has increased security and counterterrorism efforts. the transition has not been without problems. security levels -- our main concern that we have not yet struck the right balance and the privacy of americans. the fbi have the tools necessary to help heat the safe from terrorism, but i hope that we can agree that those should not come at the expense of our constitutional rights. it makes us unique and great as a nation. in recent weeks, americans -- me aware
we have heard administration officials defend these programs i saying they are critical to identify and connecting the so- called dots. there'll always be more dots analyzed. when government is collecting of totallylions innocent americans on a daily basis, when is enough enough? the ability we have to collect huge amounts of data doesn't mean that we should be doing it. last month introduced accountability and privacy protection act to ensure that the proper limits of government surveillance activities along with strong privacy protections and oversight. the fbi director bears a special responsibility for ensuring government surveillance does not
infringe upon our freedoms. have longi said that, in order to protect international security and america's fundamental rights should not be excuses. we should do both. concerns about the justice department's treatment of journalists. as the son of vermont printers and publishers, the first amendment is in my blood. the federal government must make sure that freedom of speech is being protected. i am very concerned by allegations of the collection of the associated press is phone records -- associated press's phone records. about mr. comey's
tenure as attorney general. he approved waterboarding. these memos led to the treatment of detainees in a way that was contrary to our laws and made us less safe. it is critical that whoever the fbi never repeat these mistakes. they leave a stain on this great nation. that it matters who leads our nation, at all levels of government. we need strong and ethical leaders who will steadfastly adhere to the rule of law. the fbi has a continued focus on
terrorism but has to continue its law enforcement function. to hear what want your priorities are for the next decade. it is a 10 year term. as director more noted, and i theauded him, he noted that rule of law and civil liberties are not burdens for the fbi. they have made the fbi better. we will look forward to seeing , if confirmed, will lead the app ei in these challenging times. in these challenging times. >> thank you for wanting to enter public service again. as a director of the federal bureau of investigations, you are charged with tremendous power. this power, if used
inappropriately, could threaten the civil liberties of every american. if used appropriately and subject to vigorous oversight, it protects the nation from terrorists and spies. the turtle is -- the attorney general is a law enforcement officer. serves theector attorney general and the american people as the top cop on the street. it is a demanding job. keen -- it requires a understanding of law. calm under pressure. and, a level head. after arriving at fbi headquarters, when the united states was attacked by terrorists, director robert 's will change
significantly. instead of managing a law enforcement agency, he was thrusted into the role of taking this storied law enforcement agency into a national security agency. this is not the sort of change that happens overnight. facet mueller changed the of the fbi for a new age age in a new threat. a new age and a new threat. in addition to serving as a law enforcement agency and the lead counter -- matter-terrorist agency, the fbi director must continue the conversation. success that director mueller had in transforming the fbi to deal with national security threats,
challenges remain for the next fbi director. for example, legacy problems like developing a case management computer system. inaging agent rotations washington dc headquarters. managing linguists. infrastructure, like headquarter buildings. management concerns remain about the balance between federal agents and analysts. there is a perceived double standard between agents and management. as well as the issues of whistleblower retaliation. these issues threaten to undermine the hard work of all the employees in the fbi. the position of fbi director is unique. it is a ten-year appointment. it is subject to the advice of the senate.
this term was extended two years ago on a one term basis only. the extension allowed director serve in a additional time frame. we're discussing the importance of the term limit for the fbi congress wanted to ensure accountability of the fbi. is part of that accountability. we have a responsibility. the director has to balance the at -- as fbi director against americans civil liberties -- american civil liberties. mr. comey served as the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. he was deputy attorney general during the george w. bush administration. iowan.ied an island --
i will do anything to get a vote up here. basis forided a solid the type of things that came up. i said that what mr. comey yesterday. we talked about his government experience. today, i want to discuss with them his non--governmental work -- nongovernmental work. the balance of public and private sector experience is impressive. i worry about the -- thetrations administration's failure to prosecute. kenny look beyond his
affiliations in the private sector and prosecute? i also want to discuss a number of policy matters impacting the director. i have concerns with the fbi's treatment of whistleblowers. break -- whistleblowers bring transparency to democracy. retaliated against fbi -- whistleblowers who come wrongdoing.nst the these recent leaks are not necessarily an fbi matter, but they are an issue that i have focused on for years. national --rs are national security employees. we need a protective mechanism to report wrongdoing without retaliation. i believe that a significant number of security leaks would ave happened if they had
passport. additionally, i want to expand protection to national security employees. it was cut by the house of representatives prior to being signed into law. this is necessary legislation. i lived here mr. comey's thoughts on whistleblowers and how you'll handle whistleblower complaints. i like insurance for mr. comey like ani would assurance from mr. comey that there will be protections for whistleblowers. add -- i want to ask mr. comey about the usage of drones in the united states. a few weeks ago, we learn from director mueller that the fbi was using drugs in the united states for surveillance. he indicated that this was limited. -- bromance in the united states
rones ineillance -- d the united states for surveillance. the usage of drones calls into -- the dea. usage i want to hear from mr. comey about what he thinks the proper limit of the usage of drugs should be. will he delay their usage -- drones should be. will he delay their usage? we are painfully aware of the -- of thes limitations that were placed on fbi agents prior to 9/11. called wall so-
between law enforcement and the fbi. concerns expressed in recent years threaten to rebuild those walls. information sharing of cybersecurity information could create a separation. hear your input on those matters. i would also discuss the nuts and bolts of matters involving nominees. congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight. given the wide distraction that -- discretion at the fbi has, congress needs to have the information relative to our oversight request. finally, i want to discuss general management issues.
disposition that has a double standard for management and agents. these need to be managed before other problems. there is a lot of ground to cover. i will have to submit some questions for writing. thank you very much. i want to note that senator senatoral is the senior of the state where mr. comey resides. in vermont, we call it a southern state. >> thank you. the honor of introducing mr. comey to the committee. he has a distinguished career of
public service. i want to welcome him and his and a number of his children are with them. i look forward to saying hello with them later when we are done. say how much i admire about his record. he epitomizes what is best about public service. i want to mention that he was reentering public service, but he has never left it. lifes private life, in his of working in the private sector, he has contributed immensely to his community and to restate, the state of connecticut. -- his estate, the state of connecticut. tate, the state of
connecticut. is no stranger to our justice system. publice has been about service and using the department of justice as an agent and means to achieve greater justice in our society. he began his career at the department of justice. of the most difficult and important jobs there is. become the deputy chief of the criminal division. as a former united state's attorney, i know how important , in thebility is tactical hands-on sense. in the need to prosecute and achieve greater safety for the community.
he took on a difficult job as the managing assistance of the united states attorney district virginia. for east he is counted on to get results and get the job done. he had a responsibility for prosecuting one of the most heinous terrorist attacks in the history of the unite states. he delivered 14 indictments. promoted to become the united states attorney for the southern district of new york. what are the major areas outside of washington -- one of the major areas outside of washington. he has shown dedication which has become his trademark.
-- he has shown dedication, which has become his trademark as a prosecutor. he is recognized for his performance there. he had the director's award for superior performance. throughout his career, he has been recognized in the public private.d by the his success led to his nomination. a lot has been written and said about his tenure in that role. i've worked with them in a number of respects as an attorney general. i came to admire his career us
-- of standing up and speaking truth to power. he defended the most fundamental liberties and guarantees that our constitution provides. whatever the members of this committee think about his views, they can count on is complete integrity and devotion to the rule of law. his dedication to excellence and the pursuit of civil liberties. he has demonstrated this not just in words, but in actions. in westport connecticut, i admire the work that his wife .nd he have done and his wife are licensed foster parents in connecticut. donated their time and
energy to create a foundation to support children to take them out of foster care. his life has been about public service. honored that he has chosen to assume this demanding and challenging role. i want to thank him and his family for the service and sacrifices that they have made. thank you mr. comey for joining us today. >> thank you mr. chairman -- thank you, mr. chairman. it on the record for the comey archives, can you introduce everyone in your family? >> i forgot that. left, my wife,
patrice. children are seated in the same seats they were sitting in 10 years ago. a little bit older. the only one who has not aged a bit is my wife. is 19. claire is 16. , those are my troops. swear thatolemnly the testimony you will give will be the whole truth? >> thank you. members of the committee, it is an honor to be before you. the last time i sat at his table
was two years ago. i am back asking you to confirm a -- me. it is an amazing honor. was in 1987.r case i was assigned an interstate that case. -- theft case. there is a report -- there was a report that a baby prosecutor was assigned to this case. giuliani asked her to hold off because he thought that this prosecutor could be trained. trained.s
by dozens of agents that i was so lucky to work with. i came to know the fbi agents well. i used to say that the division of responsibility was clear. they would do hard work and the attorneys would get the credit. hard and dangerous things. their work is only recognized when something goes wrong. i came to know that there are people from all walks of life that are united by a desire to do something good for the country. i came to know that they that you make a living by what you get in a life by what you give. they made remarkable lives without getting much in return. excited me the most. confirmed, if i'm
will follow a great american. of metastasizing threat terrorism that poses a threat to air secrets and commerce. -- our secrets and commerce. i know that the members described this in fundamental ways. this is a hard job. i will make mistakes. i will follow mr. mueller's example and learn from those mistakes. his legacy of candor and integrity is one that i pledged to continue. i also know that the fbi must be an independent entity in
america. it cannot be associated with any party or interest. goods to be seen as the guys in this country. the fbi must be about finding the facts. -- finding of fact in a fair and objective wife. facts in a fair and objective way. these values are the things that i love at the fbi -- about the fbi. i just introduced my beloved wife and my five kids. she is the reason i am sitting here today. i'm going to embarrass her by telling a story. offered thisgot job, i was inclined to say, no.
she urged me to say yes. she said that for two reasons. she said, this is who you are and this is what you love. second, they won't pick you. so, you might as well go through. here we are. i will remind her of that. i've been gone from government for eight years. i missed it every day of those eight years. the mission of the department of justice. rejoin that able to mission. >> i would like to talk about private conversations, but, the
-- weeks before your names your name was disclosed, the president called and asked my nominee --rding u.s. you as nominee. i said, how will you talk him into this? anyway, to be serious, i want to earlier.o something waterboard has been recognized as torture since the spanish inquisition. soldiers used this technique in the last century when they were
torturing japanese soldiers. harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, were used. director mueller did not allow dissipate in those interrogations. that was true leadership on his behalf. done, had you have you been at the eye director -- the director. >> when i first learned about waterboarding, my reaction as a citizen and leader was, this is torture. i wanted to make sure that i had nothing to do with that business. if i was the director, i would
never have anything to do with that. >> your approval was in may of 2005. that concluded that the use of waterboarding would not violate the torture statute. when i was read into the interrogation program, my reaction was what i described. as the attorney general, i tried to force a discussion about whether or not this is the type of thing we should do as americans. there are were legal issues. i'd love the most important thing was -- i thought that the was shouldant thing we be doing this.
i fought legal fights, which i , but i thought that this is wrong and awful. you have to go to the white house and make them stare at that question. i think we should not be involved in this. i made that argument as forcefully as i could. the attorney general took my notes with him. he said that the principles were on board with the policy, so, my idea was rejected. a father and leader, i thought that was torture. i discovered it was a harder question to interpret 819 94 statute that i found vague -- 1994 statute that i found vague.
that resulted in an opinion, at the end of 2004, that i thought was more responsibly written. -- 2005,ring of 2004 after i had announced my the combination opinion was the most important. no interrogation was done with one technique. there are always used a group. i read the first opinion about the individual techniques and i thought that that was a serious interpretation of a vague statue. i read the second one and thought it was terrible. i thought as a responsible. that is why i objected to it. i contacted the the attorney general and made my case. he disagreed with me and overruled me.
senator, i'm not sure that i didn't write. -- did it right. >> i'll ask you the same question that i asked the attorney general michael mukasey , do you agree that waterboarding is torture and is illegal? >> yes. questionou answer this the same way no matter what? >> absolutely. theurveillance powers of fbi have grown. americans are concerned about the domestic power of spying act.ies and the patriot
they can get the data of law- abiding americans. that creates concerns among people in my state. given that the collection metadata is appropriate, when a majority of the individuals are law-abiding americans? >> i'm not familiar with the details of the current programs because i have not been cleared and i've been out of government. as a general matter, the collection and analysis of metadata is invaluable tool in counterterrorism. >> in that sense, we're going to be reviewing some of the aspects of this if you are confirmed we on a particular piece of legislation we you work with me to come up with common
sense -- will you work with me to come up with common sense improvements to our surveillance laws? >> i would be happy to work with you. lex i worry that, again, as i that because we can do it, i'm not sure that we should. without going into the parts of it. this.sk you it is a basic question. we make sure that the fbi does not lose sight of its traditional crime-fighting mission. white-collar crime, public
reform,on, forensics and not just be seduced by the intelligence gathering aspects. >> i will strike that balance. we have to be both. both in intelligence agency and a crime-fighting agency. >> sometimes, that is the nuts and bolts that are the most important to the average person. >> yes, sir. discussed in my oversight is important in our checks and balances government. bexpect that you'll responsive to my constitutional duty of oversight. you'll take it seriously and
answer it it in a timely manner. confirmed, will you assist me in my constitutional oversight activity and be responsive to my request and my colleagues in making you accountable to the american people? >> i agree very much. oversight is a critical part of afective government in flourishing democracy. >> you will be responsive to my requests for information and will not hold them up due to .engthy clearing processes >> i do not know what problems you have encountered, but, i pledged to do my all to honor requests. on the issue of
whistleblowers, i value the information they provide congress. who cooperate with congressional oversight efforts should be cool operated with and not retaliated against. we do guarantee me that you will not go after fbi whistleblowers question mark >> yes. you, i thinkid to that whistleblowers are a critical element of a functioning democracy. people need to feel free to raise their concerns. you ornot accusing , but, of retaliation whistleblowers are retaliated against in various ways. will you assure us that every whistleblower is treated fairly
and those who retaliate against whistleblowers are held accountable? unacceptable. is >> this is more difficult to thatr, do you believe whistleblowers that no matters of national security should be treated differently? nothat is one that i do know well enough. i will look into it to understand better. >> i will will go on to another subject. it will be difficult because you are new to knowing that you were going to be appointed. while moving your organization do you have specific goals or priorities for the fbi
that you will pursue? can say, with confidence, that i think is important for the next director to continue the transformation of the fbi into an intelligence agency. i mention this in my opening statement. the cyber threats, cyber crimes, cyber terrorism, will be a key part of the next 10 years. beyond that, it would be irresponsible for me to say more without understanding how things are going now. >> i want to go into your public-sector service. how will interact with your new position, if you are confirmed.
the stop work order receipt of of fbi's termination watched and criticized by the inspector general. the program ran past the deadline and cost more than it was planned. generalyou were the iunsel at lockheed martin, ask these questions. what involvement did you have with the sentinel program? >> none. it, in lockheed martin, in a general way. out of an abundance of caution, i tried not to be involved in it and was not.
ando you think the fbi taxpayers got what they paid for in the sentinel program? >> i do not know. i do not know the answer to that. worked at a major defense company. hsbc.came the director of will you have a conflict of interest with regards to that matter? how would you resolve the conflict? >> i think it would be a conflict and recuse myself of any involvement involving my former employers. generally, with regards to pursuing those matters, how can we be assured that you will go
after white-collar offenses. ? i have long thought that prosecution of white-collar crimes is the right thing to do. you don't have people who are doing accounting fraud high on crack. send messages to the good folks of reassurances that we are doing something about this and messages to the bad folks that we're going to do something about this. >> bridgewater, your former embraced a philosophy
of transparency and recorded a lot of meetings. as a supporter of transparency in government, i think that the fbi could use a little bit more radical transparency. how could this apply to the fbi? suggested that i taped all meetings of the fbi. i'm not prepared to do that. i went to bridgewater because of the culture of transparency. it is part of me and incumbent upon every leader to foster an atmosphere we speak truth to power. are twoter and fbi different institutions. i will will carry those values with me. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you.
thank you very much. welcome. comey, as you know, in december, the senate intelligence committee adopted a 6000 page report that provides a comprehensive review of the detention and interrogation program during the bush administration. we are not issued to -- we're not ready to issue the findings publicly. that significant, it means a majority of the committee has declared that enhanced interrogation techniques should not be used. if you are confirmed, i would ask you to review our supports. review 6000deal to pages. i think it is important that you
have that background. i think is important that you read the case study. i want to focus on the objectives -- objections that you raised with alberto gonzales , before he attended the white house meeting about cia techniques. telling alberto gonzales that the interrogation techniques were awful. you said that there needed to be a detailed factual discussion. and, that's a could not be that the principles are willfully blind. why did you believe that there that theger and principles on the national security council were willfully blind to the details of the cia
program? >> thank you. i heard no one asking that third question. there are three key questions with any terrorist and technique is it effective? is it legal? -- any terrorist technique. is it legal? is it effective? should we be doing it? onlyhite house said that the first two questions matter. that thatd, i thought was unacceptable. >> thank you. i like to speak about one other thing. i wrote a letter to the secretary of defense on the issue of forced feeding of detainees at guantánamo bay.
took a look at the force- feeding issue. the kidneys are restrained in a by foot, byy, hands, and twice a day to. nose. is inserted up the in oliveered in or -- oil. the individual is force-fed. detainees who are cleared for transfer and are no threat to the country. they have no place to go. this is an expression of hopelessness. before theas been d.c. district court.
this morning, the newspaper said that no courts shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider statesion against united or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, or treatments of an alien who is or was detained by the united states. law that takes the courts out of any adjudication on this issue. i am very curious. your look at the -- you have a look at the manner that they are administered and concluded that
they are torture. these are people who are no threat to this country and have been cleared for release. fed to keepg forced them alive. in my view, this is inhumane. i'm curious regarding what you would say about this. i have received no answer from secretary hegel. chief of staff -- the chief of staff saw what i saw. it is thened about wrong thing to do -- i'm concerned about. it is the wrong thing to do. >> i do not think it would be an area that is within my job i know what you're describing. >> is within all of our job scope to care about how the country acts. >> i agree with that. i also know that there are times
where the federal authorities have had to force-feed someone who has had to eat. they try to do it in the least invasive way. what you described i would not want -- what you described, i would not want it done to me. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i must say, i agree with what you said. thank you, mr. chairman. welcome back to the committee. is not the third time that unanimously supported by the senate. i hope that that is the case. you are a folk hero for democrats.
i don't believe that that is a cause for concern on this side of the aisle. 9/11 terrorist attacks change our nation forever. -- the 9/11 terrorist attacks change our nation forever. we have given the fbi significant tools to use. the debate continues in congress over whether or not these tools are sufficient or appropriate. continued in the public arena by damaging leaks from reckless individuals. you, will youirm use the tools from congress? >> yes sir. -- yes, senator, you have the commitment. >> the fbi uses these tools to protect the country.
post claimed that we are in a time where we lived one list everything. and thathe standards the fbi respects the rule of law. >> people do not understand that the fbi operates under constraints. it starts with the attorney 's detailed guidelines on how to conduct counterterrorism investigations. people do not understand what the fisa court is. they hear seaver courts and rubber stamp. long,erience, which is people do not realize that is independent judges -- that it is independent judges. they are anything but a rubber
stamp. anyone who's appeared before judges say that calling them a rubber stamp is wrong. the activities are overseen by congress. intelligently inspectors general. that combination of judicial involvement, ig oversight, congressional oversight, for me, an effective- in oversight regime. >> that isn't good enough for me. you could go on for a long time. you spoke at the humphrey
institute of public affairs. mondale said that you are lawyers who obey and enforce the law. extend on that jewel function. function. >> the oath that public servants take is to uphold the law of the united states. to ensure that they are executed and given life. it is important that you be aggressive and respectful of the boundaries. that is a balance that some people think is impossible to
strike but, i do not think so. >> right. many things that i respect about robert mueller is candor. -- is his he has been straightforward. when the inspector general released a report in 2007 about of national security mueller director auditinged reforms and that the inspector general identified. we see that transparency and accountability and that you will be open about anything that needs to be corrected. >> i agree very much.
it is at the core of mr. mueller's being. learning from mistakes is the only.way that an institution survives and improves -- learning from mistakes is the only way that an institution surprise -- survives and improves. highlight thee to scope and depth of online policy around the world. the theft of our intellectual those whondercuts share their talents and creations with us. unfortunately, because the changing technology, those charged with enforcing those laws must stay ahead of those who perpetuate these crimes. it is not an easy job. some of the recent
investigations talk about this difficult area. are confirmed, would you prioritize property enforcement? >> yes, senator. from my eight years in the public sector, this is a public concern. we are the cradle of innovation. products become jobs that become indoors companies. -- enormous companies. have a great deal of respect with you and will work with you. i want you to know that for you to be willing to come back into the government is a great service to our country. i want to thank you. i support you. we hope we can make this a quick
confirmation. >> senator schumer. welcome.you, and fact that you have moved to connecticut, we consider you a new yorker. we have known each other a long time. i'm glad you're here. i want to speak about my experience. everyone should hear that. i'll ask a few questions. the job as director is one of the most important in the nation. it is 10 years. abuse of power. we learned that from j edgar hoover. we do not want the appointee to be subject to the whims of political appointments.
if there is one thing that i'm you aret of, it is that more than capable of exercising --ependent judgment and outs outright courage. it was six years ago that you table andt at the role ofbout the politics at the department of justice. your testimony was one of the most courageous acts by a witness that i have ever seen. if the book was written about profiles encouraged, this would be a chapter. courage, this would be a chapter. the department did not look very good. counsel aty chief
the time, had discovered that there was more to the story. on agree to speak to him this topic. after this conversation, we knew that you are prepared to testify about something of importance. that wasutional crisis not known to american public. your testimony was one of the most brave moments i've ever witnessed in my years as a legislator. you exhibit the wherewithal to talk about the ilk of law enforcement. albert gonzales and andrew card got the approval of john wirelessfor
wiretapping while john ashcroft laid ill and his hospital bed. you are the acting attorney general that night. you are not willing to sign off on the scope of the program at the white house wanted the department of justice to authorize. the history is known. you and director mueller made sure that no approval was given to the program that you did not feel had legal authorization. it appeared that the program was authorized after it had been modified to years as faction. 2005 -- to your satisfaction. we be able to say no when it matters the most, because, you did on that day -- will you be able to say, no, when it matters the most?
guest: they have been devastating for country. president obama was supposed to be reviewing the trade agreements. he has not done that. we do not want any more secret trade agreements. i am adamant about this. we need to get going on jobs that produce something here in our country. and, not use our resources, like we have been doing. guest: thank you for the call. i think that is important, if there is going to be a trade agreement, it is the right kind. one that opens up foreign markets to u.s. companies. think about it this way, the
united states has 300 million people. there are 7 billion people in the world. there are a lot of potential customers outside of the united states market. there are over a billion in china and india. it would be possible for companies to export products to those markets. that will lead to jobs. the caller is right. it is important that the barriers be broken down in an effective way. that is one of the ambassadors the obligations of the ambassador. i think that it is the opposite. we talk about trade agreements, and such. we are not just talking about goods. we're talking about intellectual property and labor. the united states has stringent intellectual property protections. they have gotten agreements with korea.
it has been a big problem in china. it is back in the news again because there are new ways to steal intellectual property through cyber hacking. you cannot make other countries do -- short of going to war -- make china do what they do not see what is in their interest. that would be in the best interest of both countries. host: talk about this headline in the washington times. activists are worried about labor. how is it that the standards are enforced? guest: the standards can be enforced in a couple of ways, that is why these agreements are done and national level, rather they company-to-company.
will try to do something informal first. many of the agreements have been informal, like the u.s. court system. the company has the ability to take -- the country has the opportunity to take a case and win. the losing country would have to remove whatever objectionable practice it has in place or suffer trade retaliation. the united states would have an opportunity to block other products from the country coming in. that is a good way to get countries to cooperate. host: this decision comes in the world trade organization? guest: in the united states- european agreement, there will be a bilateral dispute mechanism and the two bodies will set that up. host: gavin, long island new york, republican. caller: at what point does the
difference between cost of production in china and the united states narrow. it seems to be the largest portion of the difference is the cost of labor over there, as opposed to here. also, the lack of regulation in --ina and the united states. relative to the united states. i'm thinking of things related to pollution and the environment. things on those lines. it seems to me, at this point, the argument of cheaper goods coming back to the united states and keeping a lid on inflation has worn thin. there is little income being generated in the united states. it seems to me that we are at the point where, in spite of the
low prices that have been made by, relatively speaking, slave labor, relative to the united states that we are putting ourselves in a position where we cannot buy it. guest: i think that was an interesting question. there are a lot of interesting sub-questions. that is one of the reasons you seen the currency question that greta mentioned. the chinese currency increases and u.s. goods become more and, in third markets. we seeing some cases, over the last couple of years, where manufacturing is returned to the united states in in some ways. there are advantages, cheaper
labor cost being among them. if you are exporting to the united states, there is the distance involved and logistics. they have convinced some u.s. companies to come back and reinvigorate manufacturing. we see that in small ways. that is an important question. it is one of the reasons that u.s. policymakers are trying to get the chinese to reorient their own economy. they have over one billion people. if they're going to raise their standard of living, they need to consume more of what they produce. that is, in addition to the trade agreements, what the u.s. government has been trying to convince the chinese to do. it has been a slow process. host: we're talking to sandra reback -- sanford reback. up next, elizabeth.
caller: i find the discussion interesting. it is one that we have heard since 1975 forward. there is a denial that we are bringing down the middle class and that free trade will bring us up. we are moving our industrial capability to china. we are being convinced that that is in our best interest. none of this has worked out. in the short run, it has led to a dissolution of the middle class, economically, economic crises, the top one percent has enjoyed the benefits.
host: ok. guest: those are important points. some of those are accurate. keep in mind that we are not just competing -- the global economy is more interdependent than it was in 1975. that is the year that you referenced. u.s. companies have to compete with chinese companies, korean companies, japanese companies, german companies, all over the world. it is important to send products that are made in this country to overseas markets. if barriers remain, we will have some of the things that you mentioned. i think some of the sectors of the united states have suffered mightily. some of those sectors are not
coming back in large ways. we talked about textiles. where the united states is competitive, it is important that we focus on the idea that our companies can focus on those markets. host: what are currently considered the major areas of competitive advantage for the united states? guest: technology. we look at the major technology companies in the world. many of them are based in the united states. google, apple, facebook, ebay. the united states is competitive in heavy machinery. companies like caterpillar are quite successful. the companies -- the automakers,
which had a hard time over the last 10 years, are starting to turn a profit. whether or not they can convince consumers in other countries to buy those products remains to be seen. host: when we talk about trade youeements, nafta comes up. worked at the trade 's officeative and helped to negotiate nafta. talk about that. guest: that was the biggest agreement that we had. it was important in a couple of respects. it dealt with countries that we're going to deal with anyways. we're trading relationships with canada and mexico. a lot of the growth has come from nafta. nafta was the first attempt to do something separate from the world trade organization. an agreement through a few
countries that spans the entire gamut of what we talked about. goods, services, labor, the environment. there are things that we learn from that that we are trying to do better. host: can a trade agreement be changed? guest: a trade agreement can be changed if the countries that agree to it all agree to that. host: how does that happen? guest: countries use language in the agreement. south korea says that we may be able to accommodate your problem -- south korea says that we may be able to comment your problem, if you accommodate ours. host: you are on the air. caller: all these companies took the jobs to china to avoid taxes and labor laws. clean up the environment. when it took them over there,
they were getting one dollar a day. versus, what they were making here in the united states. when united states companies went overseas -- as their headquarters sit the united states -- the only people who seem to benefit from this are the government. these companies are getting off scott free from the destruction of the building that collapsed with the walmart workers. you have another one that collapsed a couple months ago. the chinese people are -- the only people were making out on this are the government and the people headquartered in the united states. guest: thank you for your call.
the caller has hit on a number of issues regarding trade policy. one of the reasons that united states companies have gone to china is that the chinese economy is growing much faster than the u.s. economy. it is estimated to grow at triple the rate of united states economy for the next several years. if they want to be competitive again globally, they need to be manufacturing in china. certainly, the labor protection in poorer countries have come in for criticism. the environmental protections have come in for criticism. i'll note that that the trader --esent if suspended certain trade representative did just suspendcertain trade preferences that bangladesh was afforded because of the incident that the caller referred to. there are elements where people
and workers in the united states have suffered. it is important to keep that in mind as we negotiate new deals. host: democratic collar. caller: i am a big c-span watcher. i watch it every day. companies and corporations benefit the american people. we do not. you have sold us a bill of goods. we are not buying it anymore. host: do companies benefit? guest: it would be interested -- interesting to hear from the someer what she has in mind. stock is concentrated. people have stock in their 401(k) and retirement accounts. that is important. i'm not selling anything. i'm trying to explain the trends. the caller is exhibiting frustration. i understand that. there are areas in the u.s. economy which are not as
theytitive as they work.-- were.some are still competitive. that causes economic disruption and pain. host: the trade agreements that are being negotiated, which industries might benefit? guest: if you're looking at the transpacific partnership, the one we are negotiating with japan, the united states is excited about that. they think they have opportunities to sell more beef and pork overseas. if you're looking at insurance companies, are looking at the opportunity to export more insurance muck -- products to the japanese market. if you look at the european deal, that is early in its negotiations but, we think auto companies are excited about
that. if there is some kind of mutual recognition of regulatory standards, foreseeable, and-- ,or example --adlights being saved in the safe in the united states is , as well.e in europe that could make them more efficient producers. host: jo, independent color, you are on the air. guest: i'm curious about nafta. they told us that it would stop the illegal immigration. yet, you have immigration problems. you say we would get cheaper goods, but why we pay the same price for a pickup truck and mexico. shouldn't that truck be cheaper? if we get all these cheaper goods.
guest: i do not think that the nafta negotiations palmist that -- promised that immigration would be solved. immigration is a controversial issue. it is not clear whether or not the immigration bill will make it through congress. that is an important issue. that is separate from nafta. on the question of goods, people vote with their pocketbook. if they are buying product, they are buying based on price and quality. nafta helped automaker set up >> a couple ofco. minor events to tell you about. the house subcommittee holds a hearing on the obama administration's recent decision to delay the employer mandate. is that 10:00 a.m.. -- that is at 10:00 a.m.
at 2:30 eastern time, the senate agricultural committee will talk about the chinese company purchase of smithfield food. >> the problem was that darwin hisnot understand that theory, natural selection could never have worked. that being a black cat provides you with big advantages. theory, theing black cat, when mixed with a white cat, you get a great cat. if you mix it with another white cat, you get a paler shade of
gray. and astrophysicist explores the work of five scientists and the mistakes that they made on their way to achievement. two -- 2. bowen testified before a senate affairs committee for a little more than an hour and a half. >> the committee will come to order. after recognizing myself and the ,anking member for five minutes
seekingecognize members recognition for one minute. we thank the gentlemen for being here. your written statements will be made part of the record. members will have five days to insert statement for the record. i would like to tell our s aresses that our party' having their conferences. the chair recognizes herself. the stabilization and reconstruction operations interact were the largest statess that the united government ever undertook. for all of its intentions, it was a program met with challenges and setbacks. its share of accomplishments and successes.
at the end of the day, we are left with a sense that there were too many errors and that fraud was widespread. there was an unnecessary waste of u.s. taxpayer dollars. it became clear that our limited post-or conflict engagement gave way to the reality on the ground. hard realities. our mission had to shift. it was a protracted rebuilding effort that required large amounts of human capital. we had neither the playing or capability to conduct it. and hisector general excellent team spent nine years and countless hours analyzing our efforts in iraq to identify the challenges that we face, what we did wrong, where we
and, what happened to the $60 billion used to fund the rebuilding of iraq. what we concluded painted a grim picture of our ability to anduately plan, execute, oversee reconstruction operations. according to the inspector general, 3-5,000,000,000 dollars wasted from the relief fund, alone. projects in iran anorak ran budget.aq ran over according to the inspector report, it ran over 16 $165illion and fell --
million. cost to 100 million. examples.but a few they may prove valuable for oversight. is put in thearnt final report. i hope everyone has a chance to look at it. rack -- iraq a serves as an important tool for the united states government and congress. we find yourselves in a shift in a post-conflict role in afghanistan.
afghanistan has replaced a rack as the largest reconstruction operation. among the many challenges that deteriorating security situation. yet, for all the challenges and deficiencies, all of them lead back to the fact that we did not have a proper plan in place before hand. spent $100 billion in afghanistan. making theselves same mistakes that we cannot afford to make. we are prepared to withdraw our troops from afghanistan at the end of 2014. haiti, a recent gao reports,
that i commissioned, indicated in a adequate use of funds -- inadequate use of funds. in order to ensure that we maintain the know-how to plan, execute, and oversee any similar operations, we must learn from the lessons of iraq. have better agency coordination and use our funds wiser. with that, i will turn to my ranking member. >> thank you for calling this hearing. has been 10 years since the united states went into a rack
on a false pretense. more than 32,000 soldiers were wounded. 100,000 iraqi civilians were killed. there is so much of people in the region. a rack -- iraq is no longer a variety -- priority. we will kill the lasting effects this war for many years. -- we will feel the lasting effects of this war for many years. we did this for stability in the region and to create a reliable partner to protect the u.s. strategic interest. stilll hear, there are thousands of personnel working on the ground working to make sure that there is the society
necessary for a stable state. order to sustain long-term stability, the focus needs to be on more than security. it must be on economic reforms and infrastructure. imf projects gdp growth of 10% for 2013. oil production is stabilizing the market for the u.s.. for the first time, there is dialogue between all of iraq's leaders. the elections have been deemed a success. violence has increased. there are 2000 casualties.
a peaceful transfer of power will be the true test of any democracy. in any operation of the scale, with this much money involved, we all went to the american people to conduct oversight. the special inspector general for iraq reconstruction has audited the operation on the ground in iraq. according to the 220 audits conducted by the inspector efforts reconstruction have been plagued by waste, fraud, and abuse. recovery of $300 million of misused funds. we know it totals well into the billions. fraud can be better controlled and future civilizations.
waste and fraud can be prevented. learn from this? how do we streamline bureaucracy and have better agency coordination. had we maintain oversight? -- how do we maintain oversight 17000 contractors. $138 billion in iraq. situationrate in a where the united states is looked upon as an occupier? not throughchieve bribery? preparestor general
is mandate for this year, hope we are never involved in a another kids the operation of that magnitude. proper planning can mitigate the pitfalls of iraq. focusing on afghanistan, going forward, saving taxpayer money and stopping fraud are incredibly important topics that i look forward to hearing our witnesses speak about today. i hope we can apply the inspector general >> thank you for your opening statement. we will recognize members for one minute opening statement. we begin with mr. kissing her. >> thank you. thank you for serving your nation.
since i only have one minute, i just want to quickly say, i am a veteran of the iraq war. i've been there multiple times over multiple years. during that process i saw a great improvement, especially after the search happened, which many people in today oppose the search. to me.amazing as a member of congress, i was shocked, i was utterly shocked to find out the administration decided they were going to leave no residual troops at the -- or was no negotiation for further status of agreement. talking about the lessons we're going to learn in afghanistan afghanistan. i just read an article today in the new york times the u.s. considers faster pullout in afghanistan. they're talking about is zero troops option after 2014, which was a number randomly pulled of a political generator of saying, politically 2014 would be a good number. i am very good -- concerned we are going to repeat
by pulling out. with that, i yield back. >> thank you very much. workank you for your hard .or you and -- work fo the money that was wasted was troubling enough, but when one contemplates that was the tip of the iceberg when looking at the inefficiencies, inappropriate projects, projects that have worked, projects that are not going to have lasting value or cannot be maintained, that number climbs rapidly. how can we be surprised that the united states find so much waste based on a war that has nothing but false premises and frankly, when the decision was made to go in with inadequate to begin with.
the chaos that resulted has cost us dearly. i hope we focus on the lessons learned. and train them so we don't repeat them. >> thank you, mr. connolly. i would like to thank the chair in the ranking members for this hearing today. it is important because it gives us the opportunity to learn lessons from our past endeavors in the middle east region and hopefully not make the same once again. if insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, let's hope i haven't hearings like this and talking to you we can inject a little sanity to our foreign endeavors of the future. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and thank them for being here today. >> thank you. >> thank you for convening this hearing and i certainly want to thank the witnesses for being
here. i think there's been considerable national debate about our engagement and the war in a rack, but there should be no question we have the responsibility to make sure we are good stewards not only of the talent of this country, but the treasure and this report raises alarming concerns. it ought not be a surprise a somewhat brought us to this conflict, but i am anxious to hear your recommendations, how we might reform this process to safeguard not only american lives but american treasure. thank you for being here. >> thank you. mr. collins. >> thank you, madam chair. . look forward to the testimony earlier, ifd looking forward is looking to the past is appropriate, but the i want to frankly,
say as we look forward into what happened as someone who else has served in a been there, let's look at the report and do it we are here to do and focus on the fact real lives were lost, real lives were cost, and taxpayer money, and this idea we have a false premise going there or other things needs to be left on the table and we need to focus on what we can learn and move ahead. >> mr. kennedy is recognized. thank you for holding this hearing and thank you to our witnesses for your service and important work. i'm going to add my voice to the voices at you have already heard this morning. in reviewing the report, i join my colleagues in being particularly troubled with some of the markets and the contracting that you pointed out .
$900 for a switch that was seven dollars, 12,000% markup. pipe, a markup of 5000%. what can we do to make sure our treasury is spent wisely and we are matching the commitment our service members are making a broad? i look forward to your thoughts and thank you for your service. >> thank you. mr. meadows? >> thank you for being here to testify. looking back it is disturbing to note we have so much waste, fraud, and abuse and yet we still don't even really know the full extent of what happened there so that is troubling. the chairwoman has pointed out we have seen some 15% to 20% of the $21 billion go up in terms
of wasted cost. cost 20 timest what it should have. anticorruption efforts that did not show any results, 70 million dollars. the money is gone. what i'm hopeful today to hear from each one of you is in terms of lessons learned, i appreciate your work for you and i am also intrigued the hear the efforts you have in terms of creating the u.s. office of contingency operations in the implementation thereof. i look forward to working with you to find significant ways that we can reduce waste, and fraud, and with that i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. you for your articulate comments. ofst of all, i am the mother an iraq veteran.
with that said, i think it that the ward more in iraq was the war on -- wrong war. the tragedy were the lives lost and mangled. i think it is very unfortunate we even have to have this hearing today. . understand the reason for it madam chair, i yield. >> thank you very much. >> they give for having this hearing. you're many important lessons learned. airbornewith the 101st in baghdad. one of the hallmarks of the army is that you always engage in self critique, not just rewarding yourself for the good things, but exploring the failures you need to improve in the future so you can always gain in your levels of performance. i look forward to hearing more
about what we can learn from a rack -- iraq and how we can apply them in the future when we find ourselves in conflict again defending our country, defending our country's values and allies around the world. into awe don't evolve look back 10 years or more into .hat took us to war in iraq >> thank you. mr. vargas. much.nk you very i appreciate the opportunity to speak but also i want to thank the witnesses for being here. the numbers are staggering, especially when we take a look at sequestration and what we have to do in the sense of cut. i am very anxious to hear your testimony. also, to find out if we really are in a better position today
than we were 10 years ago as we move forward. thank you very much for being here. >> thank you, sir. >> enqueue for holding this hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for coming. i look forward to this. it is very important. very -- a lot of bravery and positive things. we did extend a lot of blood and treasure there. air were some good things and there were some not so good things so i look forward to learning from your report and your testimony. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. thank you to our witnesses for your service to our country and being here today. the special inspector general report provides insight into the reconstruction process and iraq.
an important opportunity to evaluate our previous rebuilding efforts and consider how to improve our efficiency and any future stabilization efforts. considering all of the countries in conflict around the world hum it is critical we learn from our past mistakes and failures before involving ourselves in any other reconstruction efforts. i look forward to exploring cann contained in this report to develop more effective response systems and produce better results. >> thank you, ma'am. me tonk you for allowing speak. area,e in a hurricane hurricane zone. we would never vote for hurricane. we would never want a hurricane. but when it happens, we want to be prepared. like boy scouts, we want to anticipate the worst. now we never want to be in that situation again where we are in iraq a way we are, but it should not happen again.
it is critical we should address how we can do it at her. addressingd you are these issues and a compliment you for doing all of this under the fire of military while you're trying to audit at the same time. i appreciate your sacrifice to our nation and i really look forward to seeing how we can save a dollar. i think i had the lowest dollar per vote, so this is an issue we need to address, saving money for our taxpayers. thank you. >> thank you, sir. i think i speak for all of the members when i say how blessed we are to have in our subcommittee, as you heard, former members speak, four veterans of the iraq war. so for them, they have a real deep personal knowledge in what went on there. --nk you buster kissinger, thank you for your brave service , gentleman, and ms. frankel, for your son.
i am blessed by step son, daughter-in-law also served to her's in a rack -- tours in iraq. to welcomeleased back to our committee, the inspector general for iraq reconstruction. he has served in this position since 2004. he has overseen more than $63 billion in u.s. funds. over the past nine years, he has made 34 trips to iraq and his oversight work is produced financial benefit to the u.s. government in excess of $1.8 billion. mr. bellin is a military veteran, having served four years on active duty as an intelligence officer in the u.s. air force. thank you for your service and welcome back to our subcommittee. ambassadorll welcome from the national defense
university. prior to this, the ambassador was the ambassador to ukraine and his pakistan and retired in 2010 with the rank of career minister. he served at the reconstruction stabilization, overseen the creation of the civilian response corps and interagency group of 1000 civil servants trained and ready to deploy quickly to crises abroad. he is a two-time recipient of the presidential distinguished service award and has also received the state department's distinguished honor award in the secretary of state's career achievement award. mr. with his daughter sophie and interning with the veterans affairs committee and the ambassador is here with two interns, and we welcome them as well.
do you have a one minute opening the interest of time, i think that will forgo that. >> thank you so much. we will begin with the honorable stuart bowen. it is indeedread an honor to appear before you again to discuss our final lessons learned report, learning from a rack dosh iraq. on a personal note, madam chairman, [speaks spanish] showing off. >> it is an honor for me to be at the table with my friend ambassador john herbst who has truly the most applicable firsthand knowledge about the attempts to address the challenges that arose in iraq, the attempts to reform our reconstruction and really the story of how those attempts did not meet the mark.
thank you, john, for joining us. the ninth lesson learned report, emblematic of my understanding of this mission from the start, and that is not just to generate audits for it we did 220 of those, 170 inspection reports, and obtain convictions -- we will have over 100 by september. but to learn from what we were observing and to communicate it to operators so it could be applied to improve how u.s. taxpayer dollars were being spent in iraq. my mission as i saw it as the taxpayers watchdog, but also the support to the mission and advisor to the operators through these reports. provides seven chapters that layout how that 60 plus billion dollars was spent over the last 10 years, but
importantly, concludes with seven lessons that are the focus of today's hearing. i think that is what we should absorb from the entire iraq experience, what we can learn from it, how it can be applied , so that when we next encounter such an operation -- and we will, as most of the members have acknowledged -- that we are structured to succeed that we are prepared to win. and i have to say in answer to , that weraised already are not much better off today than we were 10 years ago with regard to planning, executing, overseeing stabilization and reconstruction operations. the seven lessons. first, begin rebuilding only after you have established adequate security. why is that a lesson? isn't that obvious? it is a lesson because we did
not apply at effectively in a terms,sh iraq. in simple begin modestly. began with small projects and don't pursue large ones until the setting is stable. ensure whole host country engagement. you pointed this out, madam chair, as a key point that we did not consult enough with the iraqis. with 44 interviews leadership, 17 iraqi leaders including prime minister malik , and allliki essentially focused on this, that we did not consult with them about what they really needed. and thus we built what we wanted. as though burns told me, deputy secretary of state, we came to a rack dosh iraq and tried to do in our own way. and he underscores and echoes the iraqi point, it consultation is key.
establish uniform contracting, personnel, and informational management systems. all messing -- missing in iraq. the years ago we found coalition provisional authority could not account for who was there. they did not have a staffing system that was apropos, which is not surprising since it was a startup. rack doshnfolded in a -- iraq. improvisation is the wrong approach. plan.e to personnel planning is the first and foremost element. you have to take the right people to the situation to succeed. ut also, i.t. there was no coherent informational management system in place to track what we built. indeed, we ultimately concluded after a series of audits, only
70% of what we built was captured in any affirmation, coherent information management system. --cceptable three at unacceptable. congress has responded to the contracting challenges. the departments have. but have they responded in an integrated, effective fashion? the answer is no. also unacceptable. if you want to talk about waste, a lot of waste occurred in poor contracting vehicle choice, poor quality assurance, poor contract management and ineffective oversight on the ground and the implementation of contracts. the most important lesson that these issues can be resolved by establishing an entity that would ensure civil military integration of planning execution and oversight for future stabilization reconstruction operations.
introduced would do that. it provides a structure. it addresses the contracting problem and a personnel problem. indeed, a put someone in charge. if no one is in charge, someone should be in charge. accountability is key to success. thisis the purpose of hearing, oversight. as our members have articulated, we have to implement reforms successl effectuate a in future stabilization reconstruction operations. the u.s. office for contingency operations would assure such success. thank you, madam chairman, and members of the committee, i look forward to your questions. >> excellent. thank you very much, mr. bowen. ambassador, we would love to hear from you as well.
just push that green button. >> madam chair -- >> a little bit closer. asking me herer today. it is a pleasure to be here. in particular i'm here to offer support for his suggestion to create the u.s. officer contingency operations. this discussion comes in opportune but a necessary moment. the country has been continually at war since september 2011. we are stretched to the near breaking point. we need time for resources and rejuvenation. with our plan withdrawals next year from afghanistan, the u.s. seems to be entering a new era of national security challenges. by the cost, the american public has expressed its preference to avoid such interventions in the future. this clear preference to avoid large-scale interventions has nation'sd by the
budgetary woes. this has put serious pressure on the federal budget and the pentagon. there is not much support at this time for the u.s. to invest its reduced budget resources, to ensure with the next ability operations in a competent way. this is a serious mistake. whether or not he was interested in new post-afghanistan or in foreign policy, the international scene continues to be characterized by state rampant instability. al qaeda holdup in the taliban led spelled state of afghanistan launched september 11 attacks. somalise ouster bob and are recruiting many. recently a new book was released ."lled "convergence that highlights how criminal groups are making common cause around the world to the detriment of law-abiding states and citizens. -- fund for international or
a state index last month listed 20 countries with somalia and the democratic of congo leading the way as in critical condition and 20 more in serious danger. words, there will be contingencies when american interests and the american public demands we act. example, haiti is in your navel that is earned its ranking as the eight most unstable country in the world. this poorly government has prompted american interventions both military and humanitarian multiple times over the last century. interventions have been driven by our desire to relieve human misery and prevent a flood of haitian refugees ashing up on our shores. these are objections to the american public and understand and support. i was in the state department during our last intervention in haiti following the earthquake in january 2010. i recall senior official saying, we will do this intervention right so there'll be no need for future interventions.
as the chairwoman pointed out, we did not do it right. our engagement achieved little, there will be occasions when we will have to engage in haiti. it is a good thing if we are prepared. developmore reason to reconstruction operations and stabilization. while the american public to be set up abroad, many in congress and political class are not. we saw this in the run-up to the intervention in libya. president obama was reluctant to engage initially. under pressure from our allies and from congress, we decided to go in. the president put clear limits on our role. we would put no soldiers on the ground. yet this intervention was in support of a principal responsibility to protect helpless citizens from their own leadership, which if applied regularly, would be to our intervening again and again around the world. we are witnessing pressure to get involved in syria. despitessure will --
our failure in libya. libya led to the destruction of democracy in mali and the humanitarian tragedy there with over 140,000 displaced people. treasure will grow for us to engage in syria. -- the pressure continues to grow for us to engage in syria. if we go into syria, we better be prepared. we are not prepared at this moment. to properly run stabilization and reconstruction operations, the u.s. needs significant capacity to complement our world-class military. one way to explain are less than successful operations in iraq and afghanistan is point out the obvious. byse were carried out professionals on the military side but by amateurs on the civilian side. this is not to denigrate our state department professionals.
i was a career foreign service officer for 31 years and can attest our foreign service officers are courageous, intelligent, and capable. the same is true with our usaid colleagues. this was evident in iraq and afghanistan. yes, we deployed hundreds and even thousands of state department officers and usaid colleagues, but we staffed it with tens of thousands of contractors. people who served one tour and left. their experience vanished with them. contrast that with the military personnel who served three or more tours in iraq and afghanistan. the problem is been for some time. it let president clinton to issue directive 56 and bush to issue national security directive 44. the purpose of the second directive was to create a rapid reaction so civilians response
corps. it was under the control of my old office of state department. while it was beginning to build the civilian response corps, the obama ministration came in. under the review under-secretary clinton, the department took a good step of making my old office to bureau and renaming of the conflict instability office bureau, raising its profile at state. unfortunately for budgetary perhaps other reasons, they decided to take part this core which once numbered over 1000, now is a handful. in other words, if we go into a major stability operation today, we will have to staff the civilian side of the contingency operation with contractors. we are no farther prepared to staff this with professional u.s. government than 10 years ago. that is the problem. we need a corew
of dedicated silly professionals in order to conduct these operations well. this is where our group comes in. the war ofnd of afghanistan, as we draw down in afghanistan, the military is putting together smaller numbers for stability operations, but they have the ability to ramp up. we do not have something equivalent on the civilian side. we have not had that since usaid was taken apart after the vietnam war. this is the first of toward reestablishing the civilian capacity. the initial cost of the proposal is insignificant, 25 million dollars. you can put together a staff of 100 25 professionals who will organize a civilian separate the judges he operations. it will provide the first ability operation professionals ready to respond to emergencies abroad. sidewould put our civilian enacted in the same same situation as our military, which is rammed down the numbers, but ramp up in aid in emergency, and
retain the know-how to conduct sibling operations -- civil operations. give credit the world's greatest military but without the counterparts, military will not do it effectively. a small investment today will help us avoid failure tomorrow. i apologize for going over my time. >> thank you very much, mr. ambassador, excellent testimony. we will begin the questioning breed -- questioning. nearlyen, we have spent 100 billion dollars in afghanistan already, however, we continue to make some of the same mistakes we have done in iraq. one of the lessons learned from your testimony that you pointed out is we should begin rebuilding only after establishing sufficient security . given the fact that we have seen press reports this morning that the president is considering leaving no troops in afghanistan after our withdrawal in 2014,