Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  October 8, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT

7:00 pm
saying they're going to nominate daniel webster, an outsider, so the republican leadership. they want to see an alternative to what exists with kevin mccarthy. and they are saying that they will hold out until they see some consuggestions from this republican leadership. what do you make of them demanding concessions of how it operates up on capitol hill? fred barnes? >> i have a stake in this fight. my son happens to work for kevin mccarthy. so i want to say that up front. look -- this group particularly the hard-core conservative group in the house, about 35, 40 members, is really feeling strong now after being a part of pushing john boehner out. he resigned. that wasn't the only reason but it was a big reason, his inability to pull together the entire republican conference. so at the end of the day, my guess is -- i had said what my
7:01 pm
bias is -- i think kevin mccarthy will probably win. but it may not be easy and the important thing is what you raise, greta. there may have to be concessions made which would weaken the next speaker and diffuse authority over committee assignments and things like that among the rank and file in the house. >> i'm not sure what their exact demands are. >> they want more power. less power, it's up. >> well, the process of legislation is always messy. right? there's always bargains and people use the power that they have to try to manipulate things to their satisfaction. this is not necessarily new. it's being done all out in the open right now. that's the way things are done these days. it looks messy, it is messy. i'd say that the question is what is the policy consequence of what they're for.
7:02 pm
if the -- i mean i don't see how the house republicans can go further right and expect the image of their party to be one that a majority of americans will accept. i mean they seem to be -- they're certainly antiimmigration, right. they've told hispanic community of the united states -- we hate you. that's the message that's coming through. hispanics are -- have no use for the republican brand. most of them. kids. young people. young voters i think have been turned off by what they're for. and if they go even further right than that, i think they just spoil the brand. >> at least that one thing. there are really two republican parties -- well, three really. the republican party at the state level. there's the congressional party and there is the presidential party. >> and look at that. and look at that.
7:03 pm
>>le wi lwell, depends who you at. donald trump you see one thing. jeb bush. marco rubio. john kasich. chris christie and a number of these candidates who are pro immigration, they're pro tax cuts. i wouldn't say they exactly are copies of jack kemp but they certainly approach that pass a limit. and so they're quite different from a part of the republican party which indeed is antiimgrant. >> give us names. who emulates jack kemp in the house or in the senate, and who represents him on the presidential trail? >> well, i think jeb bush the most. certainly john kasich does to some extent. marco rubio does to some extent. chris christie maybe less so. we'll wait and see. the tax cuts that come from other people. i haven't seen yet but more are coming out. >> house, senate? >> in the senate -- and certainly there's paul ryan. he's not running for president. he's not running for speaker either though. some people think at the end of
7:04 pm
the day he may wind up being that. i don't really but because he doesn't want it. he wants to be chairman of the house ways and means committee. but there are a number of kemp-like people. i think mort agrees with this. and you see some at the state level as well. but particularly you have to distinguish between the congressional party and the presidential party. >> nothing leaps out at me in the senate but there are people in the senate who are constructive, who are tryinging to get stuff done. lamar alexander, for example, is working on a bipartisan basis with patty murray, they've already passed a no child left behind rewrite in the committee which will be helpful. they're going to try to do an education -- higher education reform. then they're going to move on to -- to consider a bill that's already passed the house by quite a large margin. fred upton's 21st century cures
7:05 pm
bill which would consider lliba increase the amount money spent on research. that's a committee that's functioning well. bob corker is not an exciting guy but he's chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. he doesn't have kind of the energy -- obvious energy that jack kemp had but he is a constructive force. >> our authors joining us of a biography of jack kemp. david from indianapolis, democrat, go ahead. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen and ladies. >> david, we're losing you. [ sinaudible ] >> hold up, david. you got to talk more into the phone. >> caller: i guess i'm not seeing where jack kemp had a more progressive view of the conservatism that ronald reagan brought, neoconservative that
7:06 pm
ronald reagan brought. i guess i see where you could say -- >> you know what, david? i'm going to jump in. i think we've got your point. talk being about the rift. >> i think he was talking about ronald reagan and jack kemp were always at odds with each other. >> over liberal policies, social issues. >> well, no. on social issues, kemp was pro life. he didn't make a big deal out of it but he was definite i had pro life and so was reagan and he didn't make a big deal out of it. but on immigration, they were reagan signed the 1986 immigration bill. kemp was always in favor of immigration. where they differed was on economic policy. and also foreign policy. but kemp was always a supporter of reagan. there were some people who wanted kemp to run against reagan in 1980 and there was
7:07 pm
even a crazy idea that he would run and then transfer all of his delegates to reagan in hopes of being his vice president. that was -- that -- kemp didn't go for that. but kemp was always -- when reagan adopted kemp-roth they were obviously on the same team. kemp never said anything bad about reagan. he always blamed david stockman, jim baker, all of those people for trying to undercut the tax cut policy reagan can put forward in 1981. he thought that reagan was being waylaid by george schultz as secretary of state which i think is completely wrong. reagan's diaries show that what schultz was doing was exactly what reagan wanted. and so kemp was against him on that and i think he was wrong. but fundamentally he always said great things about reagan. >> he always said great things but i think the caller does have
7:08 pm
a point, and that is that the notion that reagan and kemp were just pals all the time and got along perfectly and agreed on everything, which is maybe the popular opinion about jack kemp, was really not true. kemp always pushed him to go further. he pushed against these smaller tax increases. you know, reagan never veered away from the rate cuts in the original tax cut of 1981. but at one point -- you remember this, mort -- when kemp even asked -- more than asked, demanded that reagan fire george schultz as his secretary of state. well, reagan had no intention of doing that. as mort points out, in re gan's diaries he showed how close he was to george schultz who really did represent his views. but there were times which reagan thought jack kemp was even a pest because he was pushing so hard for what he believed in. >> absolutely. and the white house staff -- the white house staff dumped into the press day after day after
7:09 pm
day all these negatives stories about how he was putting his ambition ahead of the interests of the president and who does he think he is, does he think he's the leader of the current. and this went on for days and days and days. it was kind of -- it was very messy. >> we'll hear from sue next from gaithersburg, maryland. >> caller: hi, how are you. i'm in maryland and i remember jack kemp. i went to a couple of fund-raisers. but i tell you, he would not play today because he was then, and he is now, one of the biggest rhinos out there. when you guys talk about immigration, would you please clarify that the folk that are against immigration, it is illegal immigration? it's not just immigration. and i really get very sick and tired of hearing outdated folks, or political pundits who are out of touch, all the young people i know are very much against
7:10 pm
illegal immigration, are very much against losing or sovereignty and jack kemp, when you talk about ronald reagan signing the immigration bill, he also said it was the biggest mistake of his career, that he wished he had never signed it. >> okay, sue. fred barnes -- >> ronald reagan didn't say that. what he said was the biggest mistake of his career was a bill when he was governor of california that liberalized the abortion laws in california. his agent insists this wouldn't affect many people, and of course there were a lot of. so i think that's wrong. the truth is there are a number of republican presidential candidates who not only are against illegal immigration as most people are but want to reduce the amount of legal immigration. i think carly fiorina is there and certain donald trump is and scott walker was and others are. it started o you the that republicans were just against illegal immigration but many of them have now said let's curb at least the amount of immigrants
7:11 pm
who come in the country legally. >> everybody's against illegal immigration. right? everybody wants to control the border. kemp would have wanted to control border. did want to control the border. the question is, okay, you've go 12 million people in the united states. most of them very hard working. they're the people who pick the crops, they're the people hon tend the golf courses, they're the people who work in the cannery factories. they are taking jobs that in the main -- i mean if ordinary citizens wanted to take those jobs, there's a line. they could do it. they could do the construction work if they wanted to. they're not doing it. somebody's got to do it. what are you going to do with them? you going to -- you're not going to deport 12 million people. can you imagine what the scene would be like ripping families apart? people weeping at the border? it's already going on. obama's done a lot of it
7:12 pm
himself. and if a republican were doing it, there would be riots. especially in the media. >> senator chuck schumer saying to outgoing speaker john boehner go big before you go home. what if he were to put immigration on the floor over the next three weeks? >> it would be a convulsion certainly in the republican conference because they are divided. it is a huge division in the party. and i don't think it would pass. >> you don't? democrats wouldn't support it? >> there are just too many pitfalls along the way. >> i'd love it see him put a small bill on the floor, a bill that had the dream act in it, legalize these kids who grew up in the united states, and do something about agricultural workers on a temporary basis. increase with reform the number of high-skill h1b visas.
7:13 pm
you don't have to pass comprehensive immigration reform because it won't pass but you'd do something. i'd love to see him try. >> i agree with mort on that. that's a good idea. but look, some big immigration bill pushed through at the last minute? look, up want to wind up with an immigration bill that most of the country can support, that it doesn't just create more argument and discord in the country. you can't do it by rushing something through and at the end of october. >> the book, jack kemp -- the bleeding heart conservative who changed america. authors mort kondracki and fred barnes to talk about the debates then and now on capitol hill. glen, lancaster, california, independent -- you are next. >> caller: good morning. you talk about illegal immigration and legal immigration. we got all these people you say we can't deport. we have to deport them because, look at the electoral college.
7:14 pm
we can't even -- our votes don't even count anymore because of all the illegal aliens here. and they are taking jobs american citizens want. they're taking our college -- people out of our college. it's just a mess. our country is going downhill and we'll never be able to get anything back. we have to deport them or we have no country anymore. >> you're both shaking your head. >> sir, with all due respect, illegal immigrants do not vote so they have nothing to do with the electoral college. right? secondly, those jobs -- i want to see ordinary americans standing in the lines for construction jobs where they get picked up for day labor. i never see any to the extent that i go by such places. our country is in very bad shape. in very bad shape. but it is not the illegal
7:15 pm
immigrants who's made it in very bad shape. it is those politicians up on the hill who can agree on nothing. we have terrible infrastructure and a terrible education system. teachers unions are ruining the country. it's us. right? it's us native-born americans who are messing the country up. it is not the illegal aliens. >> bill in arlington heights, illinois, a republican. you're on the air. >> caller: good morning. mort and fred, a couple questions. first a comment. i miss you guys on "mclaughlin group." >> you've been missing us for a long time. >> caller: those were the days. two mencomments -- or questions. first, would you address the role of federal reserve in the late '60s. having grown up in the '60s, '70s, i know the fed rates were super high at that time. so if you guys would comment on the role of the fed and how that really over time helped the economy by the lowering of interest rates.
7:16 pm
number two, and i'm hang up and listen. should we finally end the days of career politicians with term limits? thank you. i'll take the answer off the air. take care. >> mort and i will disagree on term limits. i like them. but we agree on the fed. part of the supply side idea is you have these tax cuts but you will is have a -- you tighten on the money supply. it was jimmy carter, faced with this high inflation and high unemployment who brought in paul volcker. paul volcker was brought in for one reason, and that is to push down inflation. he started off very strongly under carter. then reagan came in and reagan supported him as well. remember, we had a very deep recession. even higher unemployment than under the recession in 2009. and reagan backed it. didn't jump all over paul volcker as the fed chairman. inflation was crushed. and it was a very important part
7:17 pm
of what went on, along with the tack cuts that spur incentives and growth but really cracking down on the money supply is very important. >> kemp thought that volcker was pressing too hard on the brake. he was constantly fighting with volcker. as a matter of fact, wanted volcker not to be reappointed which of course reagan did. he thought that volcker was inflation and growth on acceptsed, thaccept -- obsessed. he was wrong in some cases. b kemp was afraid volcker would raise the interest rates again and spoil recovery. he also thought -- reagan -- what passed was not pure kemp-roth. it was delayed, diluted and the whole idea was that the tax cuts would be an accelerator while
7:18 pm
paul volcker was pushing on the brake. somehow the accelerator never got down far enough which is what caused the huge 1983 recession. unemployment rose to almost 11% in one month. to answer the second part of the question -- i'm against term limits because we have term limits. every two years, if you don't like the guy or woman you've got, you can throw them out. it's in the constitution. all you are going to get a is a result of term limits is novices on capitol hill, career lobbyists, career staff aides, career bureaucrats, they're going to run them around by their noses so i would rather have experienced people, even if they're incompetent up there, even if they can't agree, than having a whole bunch of newbies. >> the person poised to be the next speaker, kevin mccarthy,
7:19 pm
has some of the least experience in history of being speaker. then this tweet -- a speaker of the house with a major speaking problem. this world is a joke. >> he made a gaffe obviously when interviewed by sean hannity on fox a couple of weeks ago what he said about the gg committee which i think was factually untrue really. the benghazi committee, whatever republican intentions were, has been very straight, very honest. and has uncovered things about hillary clinton and her whole e-mail system which we wouldn't have known otherwise. that's why democrats want to shut it down. term limits have been tested at the state level in many, many states. what you say has not happened there. state legislatures have continued to function effectively even though many of the people in the house or the senate in these states have to leave. it turns out of course that there are many, many offices for
7:20 pm
these perennial office seekers that they can go. there are many other things they can run for. so term limits get elected to the house, okay. that runs out, then you are in the state senate. then you can run for governor and so on. i think they've worked quite well at the state level and would work well at the federal level. >> we'll go to loretta, cleveland, ohio. democrat. your question or comment here for these two gentlemen. >> caller: hi, good morning. everyone. i wanted to take issue with the supply side economics, because it was not caused debt, it caused three or four other names also. it was called trickle down. it was called a trojan horse and it was called voodoo economics by bush sr. now i think that if you are on the receiving end of all those tax cuts, you're doing good.
7:21 pm
but at the same time, the republicans have been picking and choosing the winners and losers ever since they've been in power. and they do this every time. as as far as supply side economics or trickle-down theory, it was never proven. and every time they give the 1% and corporations tax cut money, it disappears. they don't create jobs or they didn't create jobs here in america. >> all right, loretta. >> look, look at what happened in the 1980s. supply side economics emphatically worked. by the way, it was trickle-down to an extent in terms of actual dollars. rich people did get more than middle class people but they already had more than middle class people but they did invest
7:22 pm
the money and -- nobody now is in favor of a top rate of 70% that i know of. maybe bernie sanders is. so it's instilled itself even among the democrats agree the tax cuts in those days were too high. now i agree with you that -- but it's not part of supply side economics. it's contemporary to supply side economics. what supply side economics is is, across the board tax cuts for everybody, including poor people. what kemp was against was drilling special interest holes in the tax structure, special benefits for oil companies and whatever interest group can hire lobbyists to create special breaks in the tax code. he was in favor of a tax reform which actually passed in 1986. lower the rate for everybody but
7:23 pm
eliminates lots and lots of loopholes. >> jon is a republican. elmira, new york. hi, john. >> caller: good morning. i'm saddened to hear a comment that i heard, that i'm not surprised, the comment made that the republican party is against immigration. i think that is just flat-out false. it's not immigration that the republicans and conservatives like myself are concerned with, it's illegal immigration. we're a sovereign country and i don't think it is too much to ask for knowing who's in your country, knowing where they're at, even the 40% that are not hispanic that have come from other countries, that just extended and failed to follow the agreements they made and terms they made when they came in this country and they're still hanging out here. so to say that i think is a terrible comment for the two commentators to agree to and --
7:24 pm
>> we'll clarify here. >> fred said -- i didn't know if you heard him -- that a number of the presidential candidates are now in favor of limiting legal immigration. right? that's why -- that's part of why the republican party is getting this bad rap. secondly, you have the -- you have the leading presidential candidate at the moment, donald trump -- who by the way i regase a antithesis of everything jack kemp stood for. but he says he's going to deport 12 million people. just think about donald trump as the face of america presented to the rest of the world. but that he's going to rip 12 million people out of their homes and send them packing? what kind of a scene that is going to be? it is going to look like syria. right?
7:25 pm
it will make the united states -- it may as well -- you may as well put a shroud over the statue of liberty. >> i'm not for deportation, but syria? i don't think it's quite syria. look, some republicans are, as mort pointed out and i pointed out earlier, for reducing illegal immigration. i'm not for that. certainly mort isn't. we do need to, in addition to stopping illegal immigration, we do need to reform the legal immigration system because the legal immigration system creates incentives for people to come illegally. it's dominated by the family reunification system, that if you have some relative that's already gotten into the u.s., you go to the front of the line to get in the united states. and that dominates -- something like two-thirds of the immigrants who come in come in under the family unification system. if you're -- say if you're a
7:26 pm
young mexican who wants to come to the united states because you see it as the land of opportunity and you can really on your own decide the destiny of your own life -- you're not going to go to the end of the line and wait 25 years or something to be legally admitted to the united states. you're going to come in illegally. so we need to straighten out legal immigration system. certainly all republicans, by any means, are not anti-immigration. most of them are not. but there is a significant group, as mort points out, even among the presidential candidates, who really want to curb even legal immigration. >> going back to capitol hill and what's happening up there this morning, setting immigration aside, what advice would you give with jack kemp being the model to republicans and their fall agenda and what they're going to do in the coming weeks leading up to this 2016 election? >> i would do stuff. right? i would pass the long promise
7:27 pm
replacement for obamacare. they've been talking about repealing and replacing. they've repealed it 100 times. right? it's not been revealed. they have not replaced it. they have not shown what they're for. they haven't passed a tax reform bill. they could process in the senate and pass a significant increase in medical research which would help a lot of people in the country. they could build infrastructure. they still haven't -- i don't know whether they passed the highway bill or not. i don't believe so. >> short-term one. >> short-term one. they could pass a budget. they could actually keep the government going under terms that they set. they could force -- they could force obama to veto some much these things but at least they would show what they were for and they would show the country that they are for things instead of just being against whatever obama's for. >> there were reports that paul ryan, ways and means chairman who you say represents jack kemp in the house, working across the
7:28 pm
chamber with chuck schumer on a tax reform infrastructure package. >> i don't think it's going to go anywhere but republicans have said they want to do immigration, for instance, in stages. well, let's see stage one. they can go ahead and do that. they don't have to wait. mort, this thing about obamacare is ridiculous. why go to this huge effort to pass some obamacare bill that you know is going to be filibustered in the senate, if not there, it will be vetoed by the president. everybody knows what the president plan will be and it will be outlined by the presidential nominee but it is a more free market oriented, patient targeted health care system, much different from the obamacare which is completely top-down. there are many different versions of it but they're all very, very close. >> we'll hear from brenda next,
7:29 pm
nashville, tennessee, democrat. >> caller: i want to just say one thing. i can't pro nuns his last name. his first name is mort. >> go ahead. >> we all have trouble with it. >> caller: okay. i just wanted to say that a lot of americans -- i have two sons. one 28, one 31. they both work construction and they've been working it since they was like 19 years old. and you do have americans that will do these jobs. and i will -- i just hate when i hear him say on tv that americans won't do these jobs because that's false. because i've done those jobs and my kids, you know, they have been hard working men ever since they've been of age. so i just wanted to correct that. >> okay. okay. look, there are americans who do those jobs. i haven't seen any americans working raking sand traps on golf courses but -- or very
7:30 pm
many -- very many in big cities anyway cleaning hotel rooms. but, including at trump's hotel rooms, i might say. so i don't -- i didn't mean to insult your family or your kids. i'm sure that they are hard working. and -- but they're working. right? so i don't see that mexicans have taken their jobs. >> fresno, california, independent. >> yes. i agree with the previous callers. i had to call in, i need you guys to stop doing that. everybody does it, all the talking heads do that. there are not 12 million illegals taking -- doing the jobs that other people want. there ain't 12 million farms out here for that. if you go into any social security office, any parts store, any insurance office, there are not blacks, there are
7:31 pm
not whites in there, they're hispanics. and the majority of the people that's being hired are being hired because they speak a dual language. there's no such thing as 12 million doing farm work. but 12 million doing service work, working hotels. there ain't enough room for 12 million of them to do those jobs. so they're moving into other areas and unlike the lady that just called, my grandson is -- because of nepotism is being pushed out of jobs by these hispanics because they have their friends and everybody else. it is not fair for you to continue to say -- all of the letters, ds, is, rs, to continue saying, well, they do the jobs that americans don't do. >> mort -- >> next time you see somebody working in an insurance office ask them if they're an american citizen. up bet you they are. >> fred, mort, let's talk more about this book, jack kemp, the
7:32 pm
bleeding heart conservative who changed america. let's talk about who he was. nfl quarterback. how did that shape his governing -- his style, him as a politician? >> i think he was a leader. quarterbacks led. quarterbacks had the vision. quarterbacks were the member of the football team that showed everybody else the way to victory. and that was what kemp talked about. that's the way he led. he didn't just have a tax cut that he talked about and finally sold to ronald reagan, as the type of tax cut that reagan might like, and did. jack kemp put together a movement. and so many of these young republicans who came in -- think the newt gingrich, elected in 1978. before an accolade of jack kemp. ben webber from minnesota. another one. connie mack from florida. dan lundgren from california. dan coates from indiana.
7:33 pm
they became followers of jack kemp. the "wall street journal" endorsed over and over his tax cut ideas. economists had actually fashioned it. it was a movement that jack created a movement of which he was the quarterback. >> how do you go from a quarterback to an intellectual? >> well, he was a mediocre student -- >> not that quarterbacks are not smart. >> actually, they have to be pretty smart. how they can remember all those place and where they are supposed to throw the ball, i do not know. he was a mediocre student in college. occidental college. he was a phys ed major, football obsessed. but when he started traveling around with his team, he started reading. i mean he read the "wall street journal" and "u.s. news & world report." while his teammates were reading "playboy" and "sports illustrated." then he got deeper and deeper. he went to a seminar in
7:34 pm
economics. it wasn't that he didn't have an intellectual background. his mother was actually very highly educated, had a masters degree i think in social work in california. and constantly encouraged the kids to talk. took him to could be certificates and ballets and stuff like that, just in his youth he was not interested. then he got more and more and more interested and ultimately he read everything there was to read about economics and by the time he was done, he was as expert as anybody in monetary policy, fiscal policy, international economics, foreign policy, defense policy. and but he was self-taught. >> how did he become a bleeding heart? >> he came from a republican background. his parents were republicans. northern republicans. they were in california. but they were republicans. he wasn't a southerner. and he -- i think a lot of it had to do with his football
7:35 pm
career. he played with many, many african-americans and he found that they were -- when he was in the american football league, that they were discriminated against. when they would travel, the black players would be put in some college dormitory to stay and the white players in some nice hotel. and before kemp complained, the white players would always have white roommates and the black players would be together and kemp complained about that and it changed on the teams he was on. and i think he really learned a lot there and as i said, he came to regret that he was not old enough at the time to be a part of the civil rights movement. -- >> and tried to really push the inclusion of after cab americans into the republican party. i want to show our viewers and how you guys respond to this. this is jack kemp doing an oral history with c-span back in 2007, talking about a campaign event he did at a black-owned business when he was bob dole's running mate. >> i remember one time i gave a
7:36 pm
speech in harlem. my wife and i had gone into sylvia's soul food restaurant in harlem. there was some griping in the campaign, why is kemp hunting for ducks where there are no ducks. long story short, there will never be any ducks for our party if you don't go blameses you are not expected to campaign. but the young owner of sylvia's soul food restaurant, van woods, friend of mine, a black republican, and we had this rally at his restaurant. and charlie rangel came. an old friend from my house days. press asked him what are you doing at a kemp event. jack and i are friends. and long story short, we had a nice reception. i get on the plane, fly into boston and a "boston globe" writer says could you give the speech you gave at sylvia soul food restaurant in harlem to a suburban -- kansas city, kansas audience? i said of course i could. kansas city wants the same thing for urban harlem as anybody
7:37 pm
else. jobs. good education. chance to own your own home. i mean these things are universe. . it is not the american dream. it is the universal dream. >> so jack kemp wanted the republican party to once again become the party of abraham lincoln which was its founding. and you know, it was famously said of him that he had showered with more african-americans as a football player than most republicans have ever met. he believed in outreach. he said that america's families should include everybody and that was a pretty good example of the spirit of the guy. >> fred barnes? >> i agree. remember, i was trying to make the point that jack was basically a northern republican. remember, his seat in congress that he had for 18 years was from buffalo, new york. northern republicans were of course the people who voted in almost unanimous numbers for the civil rights acts and so on
7:38 pm
while the democrats and so many were against it and having filibusters and so on. so he really represented that background so it was quite natural for him to become a civil rights enthusiast, favoring immigration and so on. those really did become a big part of his political life. >> he didn't listen though when the party repeatedly tried to tell him what are you doing? you write about in chapter 6, he goes down to mississippi and he's at a fund-raiser with trent lott and trent lott says don't talk about that. talks about it the entire time. >> party of lincoln. >> that's who kemp was. >> unfortunately, he was a northern republican. unfortunately, all those southern democrats who did the filibusters, those people have been replaced by republicans who now are the people who are driving john boehner out of office. >> i know, but they were not defenders of segregation. they aren't defenders of segregation. >> they would be. >> mort, how do you know what's in their hearts? >> it is the same mentality. >> no, it is not. >> they're now taking it out on
7:39 pm
mexican is. >> southern companies may not agree with jack kemp's views on race but they're nothing like the racist southern democrats who blocked civil rights legislation for decades. >> they are now taking it out on mexicans. >> little taste of the beltway boys for our audience. jennifer, virginia, democrat. hi. >> caller: hello, how are you? i'm calling as a former republican and i was a jack kemp republican. i grew up in southern california. i was in college in the '80s. i really believed in supply side economics. it was a new thing then. it was being very anti-establishment as a republican. i believed that if we gave tax cuts to wealthy people that it would trickle down to the poor around it would enhance our economy and bring jobs and all the wonderful things that rights of back in the '80s. however, it didn't work. trickle-down economics did not work. it never did trickle down.
7:40 pm
i went from being a fiscal conservative to now what i consider to be fiscal responsible. and realize there are a lot of people who do need a little extra are help or -- i guess my question is, at what point -- how far down does our economy have to go? how unequal do incomes have to become before supply side economics people will admit that it didn't work? >> it did work. it did work. ma'am, it did work at the time. if you remember difference between yourself in the late 1970s and the kind of economic condition you were in and the economic conditions even into up to 2000. bill clinton did not substantially change what kemp-roth was all about. i mean he raised the top rate from 28% i think to 33%. that's all he did.
7:41 pm
but basically he cut capital gains taxes and stuff like that. and it did work. now, the problem is, one, that the tax code has been drilled full of special interest holes. and jack kemp believed what you believed -- that people at the bottom -- basically he started out saying a rising tide lifts all boats. and the tax cuts that were put through were across the board and they affected everybody and they worked. now he came to believe, vernon jordan who was then head of the urban league convinced him that there are some votes that are stuck on the bottom and need help being lifted, so he was in favor of enterprise zones which was a means of limit being the capital gains taxes in poverty areas. he was in favor of giving people housing vouchers so they could go out and rent their own houses. and he was in favor of education
7:42 pm
choice. this is a hobby horse of mine but i think the teachers unions of this country are one of the most detrimental organizations there are for poor people. in order for poor people to rise, they've got to get a decent education. charter schools and the district of columbia and california have -- and new orleans have proved that you can teach poor kids and they can go to college. but the teachers unions resist every kind of reform. >> fred barnes, back to supply side -- >> thatwas awfully good though. >> how do you explain the apparent failure of the bush tax cuts to stimulate prosperity? >> the bush tax cuts. >> right. >> the ones of the early 2000s. they certainly stalled off a recession. there was a mild recession when bush came in and they created --
7:43 pm
i thought they did maintain prosperity. just not at the level of the reagan tax cuts. in the 1980s, there were years when you had 6% growth and things like that. compare the bush years, except for maybe the last year when the economy got in so much trouble, with the obama years with being and the bush years look pretty good. the obama years, its's the firs time maybe ever, but certainly in many, many decades where we haven't had a single year of 3% growth. it's just 2% growth with people dropping out of the economy with so many part-time jobs and so on. it is not working very well. jack kemp -- i wanted to say this one thing about kemp. there was a very simple thing where he made i think the right choice. if you had to choose between spurring economic growth and trying to curb the deficit, he always went with growth. >> well, he was never a budget
7:44 pm
balancer. right? what's happened is that the fed has done everything it possibly can to keep the economy afloat. congress has been austerity minded. what do we do? we put in budget caps on everything. everything across the board. stupidly. including defense. i mean what this country needs, it needs public investment. now kemp was not -- on departing from the kemp playbook because it wasn't the issue that it was then, but this country -- i think fred agrees with this -- needs infrastructure. we are like 17th in the world in the quality of our infrastructure and that's an investment that could create jobs. and the congress just won't do it! >> what do you think jack kemp would say about wages in this country, the wage gap, the lack of growth there, and how would he aggreddress it? >> he would say that it's not
7:45 pm
the difference that counts. what it is is that everybody should rise. he didn't mind rich people getting richer, although i must say, i think he would be against carried interest, the ability of very rich people who are stock traders and hedge fund managers to pay 15%. i think he'd be against that. that's a special interest tax break. but he would be trying to raise the bottom and not bring down the top. >> i'm going to go to regina in apollo, pennsylvania, a republican. welcome to the conversation, go ahead. >> caller: hi. getting back to the day workers. well, those day worker don't pay medicare, they don't pay social security but it works in the regular native americans. they work -- they work and have to pay into these uncontrolled, unhealthy tax base and highly subsidized by lawful taxpayers. obamaca
7:46 pm
obamacare, when illegals go to the hospital their costs are taken care of. that's why our hospitals are broke. we the people take care of them, the natives. so there's no comparison between the people that go in there illegally and take the job compared to the people that have to pay in to that base. there's a lot of people, they'd like to be paid cash. that's what these people get many contractors have lost to the illegals while they come in with their illegal social security card which isn't gone after and they lose their whole business because his contractor taught them how to do everything. then they take their business. >> regina, i'm going to leave it there. this is a debate that sparks phone calls, the lines light up. >> i know. >> so given what you've heard today, several phone calls on this. >> let's hear the question. >> i know where you're going. why is this so such an issue. kemp said that when you have a stagnant or contracting economy, what politics consis evs of is
7:47 pm
pitting one group against the over over a shrinking pie. you're seeing wages flat or falling. and as a result people are looking for somebody to plame for their own condition. lots of people have fastened on illegal immigrants as the cause of it all. that's not the cause of it all. the cause of it all is that our economy is not growing. there is not opportunity. and what we have to do is create an opportunity society and you could do it by 1 of 2 ways. you could do it the bernie sanders way by having the government spending and taxing -- and that simply doesn't work. look at yaueurope. unemployment rates in europe are sky high. they have great social benefits but they don't have jobs. we need to create jobs in this country. >> i agree with that, but i understand why these callers are mad. they see illegal immigrants who do get a lot of benefits in the
7:48 pm
united states when they come here. when they work and -- look. if they show up a the a hospital, a hospital can't throw them out. hospitals have to take anybody who comes with an ailment. and who pays for that? ultimately in many cases the taxpayers pay for that. there are many other benefits that they can get that make people furious when they're taxpayers themselves. so what we need -- that's why we need immigration reform to make people with clean records legally in this system. you don't have to give them a special path to citizenship. but allow them to be working legally in the country when they pay taxes and don't just reap benefits without paying anything. >> bernadette in arizona, independent caller. hello. >> caller: hello. how are you? from doing fine. question our comment here? >> caller: i have a question about the electoral college and how the one person, one vote
7:49 pm
works. if it didn't work back in 2000, and here look what we have. now i'm not promoting al gore. i didn't vote for al gore. and i don't dislike or like him. i don't know anything about him. but what would happen if al gore had been put in office and not george bush due to the popular vote? what's the different -- what is wrong with the electoral college? can you explain that? >> i don't think anything's wrong with the electoral college myself. it goes back, it's in the constitution, goes back to the bargain which was made between the small states and the big states back in the late 1700s. what would al gore have done. you know, that's hard to know but i can tell you one thing -- bush came in, he had a plan for tax cuts. not the sweeping, deep tax cuts of ronald reagan, but tax cuts when he came in. they passed. in some ways were bipartisan.
7:50 pm
i know ten democrats in the senate voted for them. then they were hurried up a little bit later, i think in 2003, and they worked. they kept the country in a reasonably prosperous situation one we don't see now. host: what chapter would you recommend republicans read from this book on jack kemp? guest: that is a good question. really all you need to do is read the introduction. it is pretty long for an introduction to a book, but it really outlines what kemp did, why he did it, and what his career was like. and if you read another one called supply-side, it will help you. but there are so many others. jack camp had this really --
7:51 pm
kemp had this really interesting and exciting career. guest: i completely agree with fred. if you read -- if you read the introduction, i think you will continue reading the book because it does sort of set up -- and if i do say so myself, i think it is pretty well written. [laughter] host: thank you both your time
7:52 pm
7:53 pm
7:54 pm
7:55 pm
7:56 pm
7:57 pm
7:58 pm
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
8:01 pm
8:02 pm
8:03 pm
8:04 pm
8:05 pm
8:06 pm
8:07 pm
8:08 pm
8:09 pm
8:10 pm
8:11 pm
8:12 pm
8:13 pm
8:14 pm
8:15 pm
8:16 pm
8:17 pm
8:18 pm
8:19 pm
8:20 pm
8:21 pm
8:22 pm
8:23 pm
8:24 pm
8:25 pm
8:26 pm
8:27 pm
8:28 pm
>> it would limit our ability to train, advise and assist, yes, sir. >> okay. mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. can you talk to us in general about the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan and the various groups that are involved there? i guess related to that is the conversation about reconciliation talks between the taliban and afghan government. first of all, what hopes do you have for that? second of all, no matter what comes out of that, there will always be groups on both sides of the border that aren't part of it. what's sort of your -- tell us a little bit about the groups who might be involved, who might be reconcilable who we might still have to fight and how the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan factors into those negotiations? >> thanks for the question. as you know, very conflicted between pakistan and afghanistan.
8:29 pm
i do try to maintain ties with pakistan. i talk to general sharif probably once a week. i try to get to pakistan once a month. we really work hard to make sure the afghans and the pakistan military conduct discussions to continue to improve upon their ability to fight the same common enemy on that border. reconciliation is going to take time, sir. it's going to take both afghanistan and pakistan working together, although president ghani has said many times that reconciliation will be afghan-led. he and the rest of the government there continue to work at that very hard. they've had at least one really sanctioned talk and reconciliation that's been out in public, and that was probably back in the june time frame facilitated by pakistan to bring some taliban to the table to talk. working toward a second talk, but that happened the same week that the announcement of mula omar's death, so that
8:30 pm
stopped that talk. i think reconciliation talks will continue, but it will take the right people to the table to do that. they are currently a little in disarray depending on who is in charge. mula onsur is trying to take charge from his perspective, but there is a lot of other issues with the taliban because they do fight decentralized, but a lot of other factions of the taliban are not following onsur. i think it will take a couple months before we see any kind of peace negotiation, but pakistan and afghanistan realize there has to be a political solution to this problem, that they're not going to kill everybody. i think president ghani has spent the last several months to try to work it out with pakistan. he has taken a lot of challenges within his own government, but i think he's been courageous with how he's reached out.
8:31 pm
i think general rahil with his leadership is trying to work it out the same way. this is years and years of mistrust they're trying to work through, but they know they have to get there to come to a solution. your question on who would reconcile and who wouldn't, what i've heard from afghanistan is 50 to 70%. it's reconcilable on the taliban side. you probably wouldn't have a khani who continues to be an enemy that is dangerous to both the coalition and the afghan civilians because they attack civilians. they're the ones responsible for the high-profile attacks in kabul. hakani probably would not reconcile and there's probably members of aq that would not rec s -- reconcile. but 67% is probably the number. >> mr. jones? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much, and general campbell, thank you, and all our men and women in uniform for the
8:32 pm
responsibility and also the dedication. y'all are very special to all of us in america. i want to -- in march when you were here, i asked you a question, and this will not be my question, but it leads up to a question. my question was, will there ever be anyone in the diplomatic corps of the military who will say to the president, you know, we have done about all we can do. then one of your answers back to me was this: for very little continued investment, we can make this, meaning afghanistan, the shining light of central asia and that part of the world. we have spent about $686 billion there since the year 2001. you've already mentioned the number who have been killed and wounded. then recently, we had in the newspaper -- and you've acknowledged one of these -- these titles: u.s. wasted billions of dollars rebuilding afghanistan. that was in the papers back in september.
8:33 pm
then in october, afghan forces on the run. this was in the "new york times." also in the "new york times," which you have acknowledged, u.s. soldiers told to ignore sexual abuse of boys by afghan military. you know, i think of number 15 or 16 -- i've been here 20 years -- a general of the u.n. army sitting right here telling us what you told us. i believe you, there's no question about that. i believe number 15 who sat where you are today. then i go back to an e-mail that i got from the former commandant. a few years ago i asked him, general, i don't have the military background. how successful can we be in training the afghans to be soldiers and policemen? and, of course, we realize there is a problem with education in that country, and i understand that. but let me read what he said
8:34 pm
very quickly. "get real in training an army and police force. trainers are doing a wonderful job, but we don't have the time to make an army." and he closed by saying "every day somebody dies." my question to you, we are faced with a debt of $18 trillion. we're going to be debating in about a month a debt ceiling increase so we can borrow more money from foreign governments primarily to pay the bills for last year. the american taxpayer has got to know at some point in time there's going to be an end to this investment. money, blood, there's got to be an end to it. i heard something you were saying a while ago, and this is
8:35 pm
going to lead to the question. at some time, i've been hearing for 15 years from the generals like yourself that training the afghans to be policemen and security forces, it's going pretty well. it's fragile but it's going pretty well. it's been going pretty well for 15 years. that's not a criticism, i'm just making an observation. we at some point in time as a nation, and members of congress have got to understand, that we cannot continue to, as john sopko says, waste, fraud and abuse is worse than it was 15 years ago. that's not your responsibility, i understand that. but this thing has got to have an end to it. is that when the security forces can say we don't need any advisers from the coalition forces or the american military? will you give me some idea of how this thing is going to end the best you can?
8:36 pm
>> sir, thanks for the question. sir, if i could correct the record first. you said i acknowledge that we ignore the abuses, and that's not what i said. we do not, i do not. in my statement i said that we have policies that say you do not ignore the abuses, you report the abuses to your chain of command, so i would like to correct the record there if i could of what you just said. sir, again, on the financial piece and the continued support to the afghan security forces and to afghanistan and the people. yesterday was 14 years, so it has been a very, very long time. but as the chairman said, we have not been attacked. we live in the world we have. maybe not the world we want, but it's the world we have. this world is going to continue to be a very dangerous world and we're going to have people who want to continue to do harm to the men and women here in the united states. as i said earlier, and i would say for a modest continued investment, we can protect not only our homeland but continue to build -- >> general, i apologize for
8:37 pm
cutting you off, particularly after a four-minute question, but we have limited time and numerous members. if you ever want to extend your answer in writing, please feel free to do so, but we're going to have to try to keep to the time limits today. ms. sanchez? >> mr. chairman, i for one appreciate the four-minute question. thank you, mr. jones, for reminding this committee what is happening in afghanistan. so it's pretty much been a failure. general, do you know how many people we have recruited and trained over the years for the afghan army and police forces? >> ma'am, currently today we're authorized to have 352,000. that includes the army -- >> i'm not asking what you're authorized as far as billets.
8:38 pm
i'm asking how many people have we paid on the payroll to be, over these 14 years, in the afghan army and police? >> ma'am, i have to take that for the record. i don't have the answer. >> you can stop. i've only got five minutes. so i have plenty of friends in afghanistan who have gone over there. you know, we have phantom people on the rosters. we have 60-year-old men uneducated signed up for these afghan forces. we have tons of people who aren't paying that aren't even showing up for work. this has been going on and on and on. of those 360,000 billets that you say we have, how many of them are filled today, general? >> ma'am, the police are authorized 170,000, they have
8:39 pm
about 160,000 that are authorized today. the army has authorized 195,000, there's probably in the area of 173, 174,000 that are filled today. >> i think it would be important to get the number of how much we've spent training these people. you said in your testimony, "i remain concerned about the long-term viability of the afghan national defense and security forces. succinctly, afghan security cannot afford its security forces." you mentioned that 90% of these forces comes from the coalition and the majority comes from the u.s. so within your own current testimony, let alone the testimony that mr. jones brought before you from before, you basically are saying, i don't know that there's a long-term viability for these security forces, we're paying the majority of that.
8:40 pm
how much money does that mean, to have a force that you don't believe has a long-term viability? >> ma'am, if i -- >> how much. that's the question. how much? >> today for calendar year 15, $4.1 billion to build the afghan forces. >> 4 billion. >> we're not providing -- >> general, i've heard this for 14 years. it's going to be better, it's going to be more efficient, we're getting there. the reality is that we're not. we're not. mr. jones was right. my next question for you is operationally, what is our strategy in afghanistan? i heard the chairman. we haven't had 14 years of attacks coming out of afghanistan. i'll remind the chairman instead they went to somalia, instead
8:41 pm
they went to yemen, instead they went to iraq, instead they went to syria, instead they went to libya. so, you know, we can say we've concentrated our forces and our moneys in one place, but the reality is, and you and i both know this, they move. so what is the plan for afghanistan? >> ma'am, the plan is to continue to build the afghan security forces so they can protect the afghan people to have a stable government so it can provide for the afghan people, so the afghan people can have jobs, their kids can go to work, that they can be a viable country in that very part of -- >> thank you. 1 billion this year, you don't believe it's a viable strategy. let me ask one more question before my time is up, general. by the way, i just want to say i have a son who will be full-time in the u.s. infantry. we just found out.
8:42 pm
i love our forces. i think they're doing a good job. i'm talking about what we are doing as policymakers. did we ever find out how much money karzai and his cronies stole and put in swiss banks? >> general, if you want to provide that for the record, again, we're going to try to keep to the time limits. mr. forbes? >> chairman, thank you for this hearing. general, thank you for your service. you were educated at one of the best military academies we have in the world, west point. you have not just served but you've commanded for 35 years leading men and women defending this country. you've commanded in germany, haiti, iraq, afghanistan and the united states. you get to see with a set of eyes that few of us ever get to be able to look through. it is very easy for people to come in here and recount the price tag we paid in afghanistan. that's pretty easy.
8:43 pm
and there are people across america who ask what mr. jones asked: for what? what i'm going to ask you today, because as i look at your testimony, you have told us kind of what would have happened if we hadn't have been there. you said in 2015, al qaeda is attempting to rebuild its networks and planning capabilities. can you paint two pictures for us today? one, taking all of that experience you have, give us, in your best professional military judgment the danger to the united states homeland and the risk of loss of life in the united states had these individuals not made the sacrifices that you talked about and had we as a nation not made those sacrifices? and also, in your best professional military judgment, paint a picture to us of the danger of the united states homeland and the risk of loss of life to the united states if we pull out and do not continue to make those kinds of investments and sacrifices?
8:44 pm
>> sir, thank you for the question. again, we've been so fortunate in our country to have brave men and women who continue to join an organization that is not about them but about the greater good. i think all of our men and women understand that piece of it. without their great sacrifice and the sacrifices of their families, the people back here in the homeland, the people in europe would be at much greater risk of terrorist attacks. i don't think there's any doubt about that. i think in the future as we move forward, we have a lot of talk about isil and syria and iraq. we have a lot of talk about daish in afghanistan. if it's not daish in two years, it will be something different. if we think this will be cleared up in a couple of years, we're fooling ourselves. we have to position ourselves to ensure we can do everything we can to mitigate this impact. and the way to do that is to continue to apply pressure with a great special operating
8:45 pm
forces, with the great men and women we have in all of our services and to seek capability in afghanistan and other countries around the region so they can take it upon themselves. without that, the world would be much greater. >> tell us a specificity when we talk about this. if we hadn't been in afghanistan, if we hadn't done this, how would they have had a greater opportunity to strike the united states and do harm to us here at home? >> sir, they would have had sanctuary to continue to plan and devise ways they could taeb attack the homeland, they could attack europe. there is no doubt, i think, in anybody's mind there are people out there who want to do harm to people around the world. this terrorism will continue for years to come and we have to continue to do everything we can to prevent that. and the way to do that is to continue to put pressure on t. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you for your service and the sacrifice that men and women
8:46 pm
under you have made throughout the years. i yield back. >> ms. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and general campbell, thank you for your invaluable service to our country, all your sacrifices. you mentioned that our support is not unconditional. and i wonder if you could tell us within the context of the relationship that you've built with president ghani, which is really a quite extraordinary one, and in some ways i guess you would say you're fortunate that you have a willing partner. tell us more about what we could, should -- where have we, actually, used our leverage and clearly, you know, the fact they can't really afford their own military and we need to be there on their behalf, what could we be doing? what have you seen that has helped to direct to provide the impetus to move forward in governance that is really
8:47 pm
important? >> ma'am, i've seen it really at my level through moi and mod, ministry of interior, ministry of defense, that everything we do is based on conditionality. there are certain things they have to do. if you don't do this, we do that. if you don't do that, we do this. for many years if they didn't do that, we would provide it to them. what we need to do now to make sure they're not very dependent on that, we have to change behavior. and i think by putting conditionality at the moi and mod level, we can do that. we are fortunate we have president ghani that wants to work not only with the u.s. but the entire international community. president ghani personally chairs a national procurement meeting every week that i looks at contracts, and he has a board
8:48 pm
that does that to get after corruption. we've asked him to go after that. we've asked him to make some tough choices seeing abdullah working on governors and police chiefs and naming the right leadership and picking leadership based on merit and not who he knew. those are ways we can put pressure on the government as well to move forward. if i can add, ma'am, president ghani welcomes conditionality. >> has that been effective in moving some discussions as well with even the pakistanis as we move into negotiations at some point with the taliban? is there anything that we've seen with that conditionality that's kind of pushed that situation along? >> yes, ma'am. on the pakistan side, i think it was noted a couple months ago that both state department and department of defense work every day with pakistan to look at how
8:49 pm
they can continue to do more to fight terrorism and how they can go after hakani, how they can do things here that enable their forces and their people to be safe, but at the same time not destabilize afghanistan. so i think there are conditions that we can use with pakistan there. >> are we able to do that as well in talking about the constitution and the ability to not withdraw, i guess, from that human rights issue? how have we been effective with that? what else needs to be done as we move forward to ensure that those issues are dealt with? >> ma'am, i think if i saw that we needed to apply conditionality to something like that, i would absolutely do that. when i went to president ghani on the abuse of sexual children, he said, we have a law, our constitution covers that, but i will reinforce that,ly make sure
8:50 pm
all my security forces understand that. if he didn't do that, that would be something i could come back and say, mr. president, if you don't do this, i can look but again president ghani welcomes the conditions. it makes them tougher. it makes them accountable and they understand that the money, not only the money, but the blood, sweat and tears and the sacrifices of the nations is personal to them and the international community. so they welcome conditions and they want to make sure that we understand that they're very appreciative of that. and so, unlike where we were, you know, over a year ago without the national government, we're in a completely different place. >> you have all the authorities you need and no additional help from the congress to do that? >> ma'am, i'm comfortable with the authorities i have today. yes, ma'am. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. mr. miller? >> thank you. in 2004 there was a decision of
8:51 pm
9,800 troop level. my question, i think is simple but it may not be and the security question is is security better or worse than then today? how could we entertain troop levels of 5,000 or 1,000? >> sir, again, in 2014, the number of u.s. forces, coalition forces, we had verse what we have today is different so the security on them i think is one thing because unfortunately we have lost some great men and women over the last year, even resolute support. but i think we balance that based on the number of people we have had there and security, looking at force perspective. from an afghan perspective, again, that is very, very tough fighting season and they knew it was going to be a very tough fighting season and the taliban knew because we were redeploying, because our numbers would go down, they would try to
8:52 pm
send a message. and so, not having close air support like we had in the years past, emboldened the taliban in some places to go ahead and attack in large numbers we hadn't seen before. the afghan forces i think stepped up for the most part. they've made corrections. they're resilient. there have been some setbacks like in kunduz and northern helmand. but unlike iraq and afghanistan, they're not the same, afghans plan, reorganize, resupplied, put the right leadership in place and continue to fight and protect the people but taking the security attacks and the compare it from '14 to '15 it's very, very difficult because we're not out there in the numbers we were before but it's very tough fight, sir, on both sides. >> and i will yield the balance of my time to mr. turner but i have one comment to make and it is a plea. and i know you can't discuss the
8:53 pm
gunship incident in kunduz but i would plead with you, sir, please don't let the crew of that aircraft nor those americans that were on the ground that guided that fire, where they did, become scapegoats. >> try -- we have an investigation, sir, as you know and the investigation will give me the facts and i'll make sure the committee has all that as we learn more. >> thank you. i want to echo mr. miller's comments. i think everyone is very concerned about that investigation and how it -- and that those certainly who had no involvement in a mistake, no culpability in the mistake do not have consequences. we had a conversation about the 9/11 commission report. when we first got the 9/11 commission report delivered to the congress it had a chapter in it, chapter 12, that detailed what to do in the future and we shouldn't do. it specifically said that our fight was not against al qaeda
8:54 pm
and osama bin laden solely and if we viewed our fight as that, we would lose. that it was islamic extremism and worldwide terrorism. when we look at iraq, it's clear that we have not heralded chapter 12 because we have seen isis take hold and now threaten our homeland. you have made recommendations that we continue to hold troops in afghanistan. you have both isis and daesh, isil and daesh there. can you tell us if you withdraw the troops down to 1,000 the affect on both the safety of our troops and the ability of our effectiveness for counterterrorism actions in afghanistan? >> sir, if we came to -- down to 1,000 embassy presence as you just discuss, there is no counterterrorism structure force in those numbers. and then, if you draw down to that size in one location,
8:55 pm
you're solely dependent upon the force protection for that particular site. by with and through outer layer that is we would not have that we have had in the past. i'm not sure if that answers your question, sir. >> it does. which it totally cripples our ability. aren't the forces that are left behind at a greater risk without a larger footprint? >> sir, they are in one location. the enemy would know where they're at. but we would do everything we can to make sure we mitigate force protection number one concern for me. and as we continue to draw down, every commander would make sure they do everything to ensure the right force protection. it would be high risk, sir. >> -- the country, the effects of your ability to counter daesh as they enter the country? >> at the 1,000 number, there's no ct aloe case at in that. >> thank you. >> mr. courtney? >> thank you, mr. chairman.
8:56 pm
thank you, general, for your service and testimony here today. you have probably one of the most complex missions i think almost you can possibly even imagine so, again, we really appreciate your efforts. and again, i want to associate myself with mr. miller's remarks about the investigation. i think it's also important to underscore when you're talking about doctors without borders, i mean, it was almost exactly a year ago that they were working hand in hand with our military in africa taking on the ebola challenge. they are a valuable international resource and that's why i do think this requires the absolute top level of scrutiny and independence in the investigation. i would like to turn for a moment, againing on your comments regarding the afghan security forces which at the end dift i really do think is kind of the lynch pin in terms of a strategy to hand off, you know, power and security in that part of the world.
8:57 pm
in particular, the a.l.p. your comment, you made sort of an interesting comment in the testimony how they were misemployed and talking about corruption issues a enthe need to root out corruption, they fracly, have been a big topic of conversation, again, not with just sort of knee-jerk critics of u.s. forces over there, but frankly, even people who want to help the mission. can you talk a little bit about where president ghani is in terms of the a.l.p. and, you know, because, again, the criticism is they're kind of gone rogue out there a lot and there's been complaints within the civilian population about how they operate. >> sir, thanks for the question. we have looked at the afghan police. they're authorized 30,000 in 174 different districts in afghanistan. and they belong to the minister of interior on the police side. what the minister did is sign a
8:58 pm
directive to go to the provincial police chiefs to make sure they have done all the right vetting, all the right trains. they have the right leadership in place. and that they don't misuse them. so in some places a.l.p. put out in smaller checkpoints from a village and designed to do is be sort of that village security that stabilization there. and when they get taken out 5 kilometers, 10 kilometers without mutual supporting fires, support, reinforcing support, they're easy targets for the taliban and other insurgent groups. and not only because of that and casualties taken, not only that, because they have potentially some issues with leadership, taking advantage of that, he has done a holistic scrub of the a.l.p. and continued to try to force the provincial police chiefs to meet all the same standards that we have had in place and some places they haven't done that well so he is reentergized that and working hard with him to do that. he had the police chiefs back
8:59 pm
into kabul and the entire conference on a.l.p. and how to make sure we don't have the issues you talked about. >> i think it's powerful message there's real change happening if there's reforms that the government can really talk about. >> and, sir, as miss davis talked about, one of the things of conditionality, we haveality on the a.l.p. if they don't get through the reforms, they don't abide by the vetting procedures we don't pay. so that is a condition we put on them. >> seems like a pretty good leverage so thank you, general. i yield back. >> mr. wilson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm very grateful to see largely, general, bipartisan support for your efforts. i have had the great opportunity 12 times over the years of my service in congress to visit. i have seen a civil society develop. it is just so inspiring to go along streets and see little girls with white scarfs going to school, carrying books and warms
9:00 pm
our heart and guys in baseball bats not indigenous to afghanistan. these are people who are truly working to develop a civil society and i just want to thank you and very personal. my appreciation of your service. my youngest son hunter served as an engineer for a year in afghanistan. and i just know he was making a difference by helping build that country, rebuild -- begin from -- from the beginning. so that -- to protect american families at home. and you have. additionally, i'm grateful as a veteran. my unit, the 218th brigade served there under bob livingston and the largest deployment from south carolina since world war ii. 1,600 troops and spread all over the country and they were pepg train forces and they were so inspired. these are lifelong friends of mine and they would


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on