tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 16, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
-- you have a pretty complete description. thiswould be helpful is administrations legislation. youhe if it -- if it passed guys, the whole system would have to get together and think about it and articulated. it is like when money growth was put into the act in 1977. the fed christ everybody got together and thought, what is the best way for us to report growth? and it was -- there were different opinions. a lot of people had heard them before. i think they had to come together and that is what would happen. kweisi mentioned the legislation. one fact of life is that almost all the people who liked that legislation and criticize this set are republicans. the democrats have been very
defensive. i am curious whether -- why do you think that is? clicks i think it is a problem. testified, it was just so start. it is an arcane subject. it is somehow, i don't think it just reflects the polarization people refer to all the time. it could be -- there are lots of possibilities. some people say the parties have somewhat different philosophies about government interventions in power so one party -- so generally, less interventionist. another is more interventionist? there are more political reasons. good.t think it is
people mean well, trying to be constructive. reason, it has gotten very partisan. >> why? issues -- we all want to have a stronger economy, a stable economy. there is nothing partisan about it. to theuld go way back jennings bryan type of partisanship. i don't think it is that you are that it isct polarized politically understands why it is a bad idea, in part because -- >> the fed has to carry that out.
>> that would ultimately politicize the process, reduce the credibility, and make it harder for the fed to achieve goals. there has been a lot of research that shows that the outcome is >> that would risk -- >> i disagree. look atsense, if you where independence has come and gone, it is the administration. the 1970's, it is clearly administration.
>> by degree that the original concern about the independence of the central bank was the administration. bill clinton and the young, the administration has been consistent. it seems pretty clear to come from the congress. i am not sure you could get a vote in the majority of congress that things the central bank is a good idea. it is not a very heroic -- >> we are actually talking about particular legislation and there are pieces of legislation which would go in the direction you talk about. >> i think it is constructed to give more independence and more insulation. .here is always resistance
congress has a responsibility for oversight. this legislation enables congress to have oversight in a way that the fed does not. if the fed wast using a ouija board, what can they do about it? if you are support your strategy as you see fit along the lines you --ll was describing, if members of congress, even those in favor of the bill, never asked janet yellen to explain what they would tell you now and now you are deviating from it. it is not clear what their motivation is.
you have a semiannual report to congress. why don't you put a chart in and tell congress we did it. >> whenever you start to focus is thatarticular rule you are creating questions when you deviate. that limits your ability to pursue a different approach. the point that you want to wander all over the place. he wanted to be systematic. changes,rld systematically, you have to change your process. one of the problems with the that it led to a monetary policy that was tighter than the one we pursued which means we wouldn't have made as much progress.
think of it this way. more people would be out of work today. that is the real consequence. i don't feel comfortable having more people out of work today on the basis of the role. >> i disagree. you have no evidence. my evidence looks at historical periods when the economy did well. it is a clear strategy being used and you don't have to look at the united states, you can look at any other countries. it is counter to what you just said. i think we would be better off now in this current situation. there would be less concerned about downturn. what are you going to do during a downturn? the economy is operating pretty well.
we got away from that unusual policy. i think the economy is in much better shape. it is not the only issue. there are lots of policy issues. >> let's compare the u.s. to europe or japan. there are differences between those countries. we were much more aggressive about recaps. as a consequence, even though we haven't performed well, we have performed better than other major countries. >> comparing with europe -- just compare with ourselves. japan followed you. you basically did qe, drove up the yen. the yen is too high.
we are going to appoint the governor who dues what the fed days. they drove the yen to 120. where is that economy? is that humming along? people ever in a lot about currency exchanges. in 2014, the euro was driven down. problema internationally which is not healthy. them?out you impacting >> what is going on in emerging markets is that it is more complex. it has a lot to do with the chinese strong economic growth. booms, i would argue that the fed monetary policy regime has been an important. click see you think that fiscal policy since the crisis has
helped the fed achieve goals orbit something that they had to fight against? >> that is a big question. the stimulus packages do not work out too well. bush and ministration in 2009, with the obama administration. i don't think that is surprising. we learned that temporary stimulus things do not have much effect. about thatt i think fiscal policy. i think that the unraveling of those has required some contraction. inevitabilityf an of these short-term goals. i think the issue about debt is a problem. able --able now and it it will explode. the fed is affecting that to some extent. it seems to me that the fed
actions -- sometimes the idea is out there that we are the only game in town. fiscal policy is not working so we have to do it. bank holds out there advertisement, we can do it. you enter doing too much. central banks have the same problem. i remember visiting the bank of india in 2009 in the governor said, mr. taylor, the government is telling us to do the same thing that the fed is doing, can you give us some ammunition that there was pressure from all over the place to do something and i don't think -- sometimes you just say, no, that is not our job. we are focused institution. the stimulus is contractionary. or fed should offset that
say, america, you voted for these clowns? they should look at the overall economy? >> including fiscal policy, yeah. cleargress gives a very mandate about employment and price stability. that is but we need to pursue. say anything about contractionary fiscal policy. we have to take the world as it is. we need to put all the tools we have available to achieve those objectives. i would like fiscal policy to move it differently. bit lessittle austerity as quickly and as far as it was in 2000 13-2014. we have to take the world as it is. -- the economy itself. the economy now crowing so well. revenues are not so well so
state local spending is not preceded very fast. room wheree had a they were clickers and you can like, vote. i did not think that before. we are going to take questions now. i'm going to ask you to identify yourself and keep your questions short. there is a microphone coming. >> you emphasize a lot of financial conditions and a framework about how thinking policy affects the economy. financialt change in conditions has been the dollar and it is probably the case that you have a lot more time he then perhaps you would normally anticipate based on the rate plans and rate differentials.
so when you look forward, how do you think about the dollar in andcontext of your forecast policy strategy? is a reasonable to assume that you will get more drag from the dollar than you would normally get if you were following array path that is more like the sep than what is currently priced into the market? >> we consider the dollar in terms of how it can affect import prices and how it can affect trade sector performance. the dollar has appreciated by 15% on a basis so that is dampening inflation. it is also restraining growth. we take that into consideration. we are not targeting the dollar. we do not have an objective for the value of a dollar. the dollar is an environmental factor. together -- things
describing market conditions. everything is equal and financial conditions are more accommodative and you can incorporate that into your policy thinking if financial conditions are tighter, you expect the economy to grow more slowly. if you factor that in terms of a -- >> monetary policy and financial conditions are tighter because the anticipate -- the fede extent that follows monetary policy consistent with market expectations and other countries follow policy consistently you would expect the dollar 10 not boo very much. if we were to tighten a lot more than expected in other countries were just following easier policies than expected in apollo -- than the dollar were likely appreciate that, today, the valuation it it is incorporating expectations about how monetary policy will involve.
>> i am a micro economist. this. all of i'm thinking, this is just deja vu. agencies.latory the way i think about this, the 1970's and 1980's, we had regulatory agencies. fcc. they employed forms of taylor rules. prices were regulated. they were bad ones, but they had them. people took your perspective and said, this is too rigid. let's start experimenting and have some flexibility. if these guys can make decisions on their own. this more nuanced approach is desirable. ands go one step further start deregulating all these industries. that is what i am thinking about.
good and better than taylor rules really a guiding what the fed ought to be doing? why don't we go then that one step further and completely isolate the fed from any kind of political influences whatsoever and say look we have these people to look at data, they will be nuanced, and let them make policy. they are not appointed by the government, they don't go before congress. if you find that off the wall i say ok fine per dozen that bring you back to taylor rules and saying well if they are good you are going to let them done a given that they can't we think that the situations will be complete disasters the outcome maybe the rule is not so bad. what you think? >> the reserve has to have legitimacy. a gets legitimacy from the fact that the chair of the fed is
named by the president. arethe fact that they chosen by the board of directors and the board of governors. that is where the legitimacy comes from. what we are doing and why we are doing it -- i think that lets -- i think that is very, very important. i think there problem with having a one off approach is that people would have a andtimate question democratic society, who are whereguys and women and did they get the ability to do this in a democratic regime? what we have now works well. legitimacyr sense of maybe because of the way it works in terms of who gets the position and lots of reports to congress and to the public about
what we are doing so it can be evaluated on the basis of our successes and failures. i think that is a good balance. leaving the decision-making about how to do it to us with the goals are set by congress. i can is a good balance. -- i think that is a good balance. two'm going to try to ask questions. mr. taylor, when you wrote your will, the fed did not have an inflation objective. embeddedhas an inflation goal. it has a 2% goal. why do we need a rule? ask i call my plumber and him to fix a leak, i don't ask him to tell me before he has looked how he is going to fix it, i just want to know he is going to fix it. weekd governors spoke this
, and they both expressed skepticism with expectations. it is the foundation of the view that inflation is going to rise. they also expressed some desire to see actual evidence that inflation is rising before the act on rates. i want to hear what you think of that argument, if you have doubts about the expectations. and if you wanted to see actual evidence in prices and wages before you start moving. thank you. >> john, do you want to start? >> yet. the idea -- the question is the the inflation target enough -- i don't think it is enough. it basically leaves open completely how you get anything is, intervention in this market and that market does not describe the policy at all and i think also the plumber
is -- what if there was only one plumber in town? that you had a choice ago to? wouldn't you want some evaluation of their techniques of it and rip the place apart yet know i think there is a little more than your analogy to think about. there was only one plumber in town and the plumber was incompetent somebody would do something to make sure there is a new plumber in town. [indiscernible] >> i think there is a lot of uncertainty about exactly how inflation works as you drive so-callednt down to full on -- full employment radar so one, so there is a question about how much it is influence inflation much is and -- we don't really know
precisely what the shaper that trade-off is in terms of how much inflation we get is a consequence. we don't know how it changes its shape as we drive unemployment down. my personal view is that i believe that if you push the unemployment rate down far enough, the plumber certainly gets deeper because inflation expectations will probably rise -- what is the federal reserve -- that low? aboutis lots of concern the link between pressure on resources and how that actually feeds through in terms of higher inflation. we --ason for that is inflation equitation's been so well anchored in recent years that it's instantly more powerful determinant of what actual inflation actually is. questionasked the about actual inflation -- i need to be completely confident that inflation is going to be 2% inflation over the term out for some people that -- they -- they might decide that they need to see actual inflation start to head up but i don't feel that
that is a necessary condition of inflation getting back -- in the meantime, vice he more pressure on resources and have a belief that the economy will grow, the rate will continue to decline, i will expect that i will become reasonably more confident about inflation going back over the medium term so i see -- i definitely see a linkage between the pressure on labor market resources and my confidence about inflation. so i actually -- i am not willing to sort of throw that relationship out the window even though there is quite a bit of uncertainty about that link, precisely. >> thank you. question for both of you. can you comment on the usefulness in the united states about targeting a negative interest rate on as an -- as an alternative to q&a. -- as an alternative to qe? >> what? >> i hope the direction opens so
many cans of worms and you should probably stay away. i think it is a great thing to do research on how you would actually articulated but i imagine -- we get developed in new ways to gain the system so the size right now, it doesn't have to be negative in the u.s. we only had this time in 2009 where you could even think about it and since then, it is not it -- issue and it intainly was an issue 2003-2005 which means the biggest mistake is no zero bounce question then, they were way below what i think would be reasonable but way above zero. >> i think it is a question that is on a table right now because the economy is growing above trend [indiscernible] . the one thing that we have seen over the last year or so is other countries have moved to 10
negative interest rates and i would say that the unintended consequence of moving the negative short-term [indiscernible] is less than what people had here. is a totally doing different institutional set of -- then in the united states and it is not obvious that is because it is working well there that you would necessarily the on to imported here. we have a very different system in terms of how our money markets work. i think you would have to ask yourself the question if it would benefit interest rates and obviously in a very different environment than we are in today. ofential cost in terms unintended consequences -- obviously, as a weather the financial crisis, that was an option. and we decided not to pursue that option because of fears of the benefits not being sufficient to their outweigh the cost -- sufficient enough to outweigh the cost. >> there is a microphone behind you. aren't our interest rates
already extremely high? you can see that in world markets, our bonds pay 3%, the ate as spain versus germany 0.5%. our rates are very high and we are seeing the effect in terms terms ofand also, in our monetary policy, we are experiencing the limitation of luckily done from just paper so money ends up in the banks but that doesn't leave the bank in terms of creating money. we are working with fiscal policy that is negative. so isn't there a limitation to saying goodbye -- single by mortgages versus actually buying stuff like water authority bonds, port authority bonds? -- we can buy
treasuries, securities, short-term general obligation bonds so we are limited by sovereign debt. so we -- we are very limited in terms of what we can buy so what bybought was in part defined what the set of things that were -- to buy. long-term rates are higher. they are around 2%. that is actually a very good thing. shows the people actually think that short-term interest rates are going to rise over the next few years that is assigned a sign that we are making some progress in terms of achieving our objectives. the fact that they are so low in germany and japan reflects a greater concern about prospects concernss and greater about how quickly short-term interest rates will be normalized in those countries so
i'm very happy that we have higher long-term yields compared to japan. because you think and reflect a stronger economy went quietly reflect a stronger economy and they reflect the expectation that short-term interest rates will rise in the futures of the future so that we are actually making progress. can i ask you -- that you are seeing a slowdown in the economy. can you give us an idea of what indicators you are looking at when you say that? there is a risk when you are at the zero risk pounds of going to assume, that outweighs the risk of going too late and obviously having to hike more sharply. the onegive us your that? >> i think there is some news that suggests that it is slowing down a little bit. the things that [indiscernible] retail sales which we got earlier this week were on the soft side. i wouldn't one of a too much out
of that. there is a lot of information between now and the end of the year and the economy has a lot .f variability in it in a normal course, the data is not measured very well, very precisely so i wouldn't one me to my town of that. basically when i see is that the domestic economy is actually performing pretty well, consumption is growing at a decent clip, housing is recovering, the business investment is rising, what is holding the economy back as two things right now, inventories, you had a lot of contributions to inventory of growth in the first half of a year we are probably going to get some of that back in the second half of the year on most certainly so quarter for example would probably be somewhat weaker on a tdp perspective not because the economy is weak of because inventories are a drag in the second aspect is the fact that the dollar has it depreciated so much in growth and the rest of the world is quite sluggish and so we are seeing persistent [indiscernible]
u.s. trade performance and that is not anything if that is the case should be able to normalize. as i said, that's a forecast. >> the question also was when you're at zero and don't have her much inflation, you have to adjust to what is the worst outcome? it was more than you would hope for. or is it a worse outcome if you move too
when you hear that maybe it was part of the question. that's not what we've learned you want somewhat higher. it should be higher than zero. it causes some problems. it can't be lowered. -- yourter to have more car needs to have a sense in which it can go faster and but we are in that situation now. >> there are risks on both sides.
you risk having to go back down to zero. your riskt too long of recession. your balancing those two risks. reasonable people can reach different views. >> one comment. i wouldonly one plumber hope you would have as many tools as possible. but as a thought experiment you assumed we were measuring productivity incorrectly and its to questions one is doesn't that mean inflation is lower growth is higher?
question number two if you're in a situation where the economy is behaving very differently. >> those questions are related. i think it's hard to estimate the economy's potential productivity. i think you need to do that. whether concurrent discretionary policy or rule. it's just a fact of life. the world changing the economy changing how could you possibly have one rule?
thatnk what we learned is you can have lots of different views of the world and if your it's one reason not to have a very complicated thing. you're going to start reacting to the problem. you're taking it out one little thing. it's more robust. robust means it works with different views. you don't require expectations. that's what i think we found. that's why they're attractive. they would be a waste. whoe's a guy in frankfurt
it's one thing to think about is has held up over time. the rule tells you the identity -- the ideal of district would be below zero what can they do that they didn't do? buying mortgage-backed securities was not justified by that particular situation. if interest rates are at zero and you need to do more to increase the money supply products i think a lot of the reacting tos about particular episodes.
we would appreciate it if you could pick up the papers at your feet. there's recycling outside. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] defense secretary ashton carter on the afghanistan mission. the panel of ceos discussing federal taxes and regulations.
>> on the next washington journal, college affordability. better markets on wall street. molly o'toole on where candidate stands on national security. washington journal's live with your phone call that 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> unification to my mind is far more than cosmetics. to me and describes the whole effort to bring the natural world and the man-made world into harmony, to bring order and youthfulness and the light to our whole environment. that of course only begins for
trees and flowers and her bill isarea >> about beautifying the nation. she was a natural campaigner and six sole businesswoman and savvy political partner to her husband lbj. lady bird johnson this sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on the spans original series first ladies influence an image. examining the public and private lives of the women who fill the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency for martha washington to michelle obama on c-span3. >> this monday on c-span2 series landmark cases.
to address this problem louisiana allowed only one government run slaughterhouse. the other houses took them to court. follow the slaughterhouse courses of 1873. rejoined by former solicitor general and an author. be sure to join the conversation when we take your calls tweets and facebook comments during the program use the #landmark cases live monday on c-span, c-span3 and he spent radio. case willound on each you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book available rate 95 shipping >> president obama
announced its to keep troops in afghanistan. the soldiers will serve in noncombat roles training and advising afghan military. the president made the announcement in a white house -- from the white house and 15 minute briefing. president obama: good morning. america's combat mission in afghanistan came to a responsible and. that milestone was achieved thanks to the courage and the skill of our military and our intelligence and civilian personnel. they served their with extraordinary skill and valor.
it's worth remembering especially the more than 2200 american patriots who made the ultimate sacrifice in afghanistan area i visited our troops last year to thank them on behalf of the grateful nation. i told them they could take great pride in the progress that they helped achieve. they struck devastating blows against al qaeda can deliver justice to osama bin laden. they saved american lives. soy pushed the taliban back the afghan people can reclaim their communities. our troops trained afghan forces so they could take the.
today, american forces no longer control afghan villages or valleys. the troops are not engaged in a major ground combat against taliban. those missions not a lot of afghans who are fully responsible for securing their country. before whilesaid an american combat mission in afghanistan may be over, our commitment to afghanistan and its people indoors. as commander-in-chief, i will not allow afghanistan to be used as a safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again area our forces therefore remain engaged into narrow but vertical missions area training afghan forces and supporting counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al qaeda. of course, compared to the 100,000 we once had in afghanistan, today fewer than 10,000 remain in support of these very focused missions.
i meet regularly with my national security team including commanders in afghanistan to continually assess how to handle the situation on the ground. to determine where strategy is working and where we may need greater flexibility. thatinsisted consistently our strategy focus on the development of asus datable afghan capacity and self-sufficiency. and when we needed additional forces to advance that goal made adjustments in terms of our timetables. today i want to update the american people on our efforts. since taking the lead for security earlier this year, afghan forces have continued to step up. this is in the first fighting season were afghans and been largely on their own. they're are fighting bravely and tenaciously for their country. they have a hold on most urban areas and when the taliban has
afghan forces have been able to put them back. that comes with a very heavy price. thousands of troops and police have lost their lives as have many civilians. afghan forcesme, are still not as strong as they need to be. they're developing critical meanwhile the taliban has made gains. and can still lodged at the attacks in cities including kabul. much of this was predictable. we understood that as we transition taliban would try to movementsome of our out particular areas. in it would take time for their
security forces to strengthen. pressure from pakistan has resulted in more al qaeda. the bottom line is in tears of the country security situation is a very fragile and in some places at risk of deterioration. fortunately, and the president there is a national unity government that supports a strong partnership with the united date. yearg a visit earlier this the president and i agreed to continue our counterterrorism efforts. he is asked for continued support of the forces grow stronger. following consultations with my entire national security team as well as our international partners and members congress, and therefore announcing the following steps which i'm
convinced offer the best opportunity for a lasting impact. maintainve decided to our current posture of 9800 troops in afghanistan through most of next year. their mission will not change. our troops will continue to tasks those two narrow that i outlined. maintaining our current posture to most of next year rather than a more rapid strong will allow us to sustain our efforts to train up in forces as they grow stronger. only during this fighting season. -- not only and during this fighting season but it's the next. second, i decided that instead of going notes were normal embassy present in kabul we will maintain 5500 troops at a small
again, theases mission will not change. our troops will focus on training afghans. but these bases will give us the forcese in the reach our required to achieve their is allowed to deal more broadly with terrorist act quickly. third, we will work with allies with ourers to align own presence in afghanistan iner 20 team area afghanistan we are part of a 42 nation coalition. our nato allies continue to play an indispensable role in helping afghanistan strengthens security forces including respect for
human rights. governance and development remain the foundation forces hollow we will continue to support the president and the government new provincial governors have been appointed and the president is working to combat corruption and the old rule of law. yesterday efforts to deliver progress will continue to have strong support of the united states. we cannot separate the importance of governance with the issues of security. these reforms happen better off security situation will be. discussed american support of reconciliation
process. clear to the be taliban and all who oppose afghanistan's progress the only real way to achieve this through a lasting political alliance. likewise, say shores for the telegram and other terrorists must end. week, i was the prime minister and continue to encourage all parties in the region to do their part in pursuit of peace. closing, i want to speak directly to those whose lives are most directly affected. people, america's commitment to you into a secure stable and unified afghanistan remains firm.
our two nations have forged a partnership for the long-term as you defend and build your country today is a reminder that the united states keeps our commitments. and to our men and women in uniform i know this means some of you will be going back to afghanistan. the end of our combat mission this is not like 2010 with nearly 500 americans were killed and many more were injured. but still, afghanistan remains dangerous. 25 americans and given their life there this year. i do not send you into harm's way lightly. it's the most solemn decision i make. after the wages of war , i believen-chief
this mission is vital to our national security interests. and to the american people, i know many of you have grown as you're well aware i do not support the idea of endless war. yet given what's at stake in afghanistan, and the opportunity and the fact that we have a coalition i'm firmly convinced that we should make this extra effort. in the afghan government, we have a serious partner who wants and the majority of afghan people share our goals.
we have a bilateral security agreement to guide our cooperation areas every single day afghan forces are out there fighting to protect their country. they're not looking for us to do it for them. armypeaking of the afghan that grew up seeing bombings and attacks on innocent civilians. with the police officer and training to defuse explosives. and outsiders were but have always had a dream of wearing the uniform of afghanistan and serving my people in defending my country. the afghan commando art and veteran said if i start telling you the stories of my life i might start crying. peace the we bring faster we can bring education and a stronger unity will grow.
these things happen will afghanistan be able to stand up for itself. my fellow americans, after so , afghanistan war will not be a perfect place. it is a poor country and will have to work hard on its development. it will continue to be contested. afghans like these are standing up for their country. fail, it would endanger the security of us all. investmentsnormous in a stable afghanistan. afghans make difficult but genuine progress this modest but meaningful extension of our presence while sticking to our current narrow missions can make a real difference.
may god bless our troops and all who keep us safe. may god continue to bless the united dates in america areas will. this decision is not disappointing. continually my goal has been to we give every opportunity for afghanistan six while meeting our core mission. i am encouraged we have a government serious about delivering security and the
prospect of a better life for a and people --afghan people. we have people who want to partner with us to achieve those goals. we have a bilateral security arrangement that ensures that our troops can operate in ways that protect them, while still achieving their mission. we have always known that we have to maintain a counterterrorism operation in prevention in order to reemergence of active al qaeda networks. this is consistent with the overall vision that we have had. anticipated, as we wee drawing down troops might need to slow things down or fill gaps in afghan capacity. this is a reflection of that.
this is a dangerous area. thate trying to balance afghans are out there doing what they need to do, but we are giving them a chance to succeed. ourwe are making sure that posture in the area are conducting those missions we need to conduct, we can do so relatively safely. bute are still risks, protection, the ability or our embassies to operate effectively, all those inks -- those things factor in. the important thing to emphasize is the nature of the mission has not changed. the cessation of our combat role has not changed. the 25 military and civilians killed lester -- last year, that way for my mind -- weighs on my mind.
25 deaths are too many, particularly for the families. understand, relative to what was involved when we were actively engaged in war in afghanistan was a different scenario. here you have a situation where we have clarity about what our mission is. we've a partner who wants to work with us. we will continually make adjustments to ensure that we give the best possibilities for success. i suspect we will continue to evaluate this going forward, as will the next president. willnditions improve, we be in a position to make further adjustments. i am absolutely confident this is the right thing to do. i am not disappointed because my view has always been, why -- how do we achieve our goals while minimizing the strain on our men and women in uniform.
we make sure that we are encouraging the f and people -- the afghan people. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] defense secretary ashton carter, here to talk about president obama's announcement today regarding u.s. troop movement levels in afghanistan. >> hello, everyone. secretary carter has a brief statement regarding the president's decision on afghanistan. he has time for about one or two questions and he has to meet with the south korean minister of defense. i will stick around to answer
any additional questions you have. secretary, it's all yours. secretary carter: thank you very over the last 14 years, over 2200 americans paid the ultimate price to keep the less secure while helping the people of afghanistan realizing a brighter future. we have welcomed many of those brave americans home and visited many more wounded at walter reed. today's decision from the president to adjust our troop presence in afghanistan honors that sacrifice and gives us the chance to finish what we started. over the years, i have witnessed and contributed to that effort, which has been so superbly executed by u.s. and coalition forces. when i became secretary of defense, i made it one of my top priorities to ensure the long-term success of that mission.
that is why one of the first things i did when i started this job was to travel to afghanistan. i wanted to see firsthand what was happening in the country where the united states and the men and women of the department of defense have invested and sacrificed so much. what i have learned over the last eight months is that afghanistan is on a better path. more work lies ahead. america's national security remains very much at stake in that part of the world. today, after considering input from me, our top military leaders, the rest of the national security team, our nato allies in the government of afghanistan, the president announced his decision to maintain our current force posture of 9800 troops through most of next year. by january 2017, u.s. forces will draw down to 5500 troops.
they were redeployed deployed at several locations around afghanistan, including kabul, kandahar, and jalalabad, in support of two important and enduring visions -- missions. we are adjusting our presence based on conditions on the ground to give the united states and our allies the capabilities this -- to sustain a robust antiterrorism -- counterterrorism platform. this will keep americans safer back home. these changes take into account the progress of afghan forces and the partnership we have donnie --h president ghani.
they have proven themselves to be capable and resilient fighters. they have performed admirably this season. the first four which is a responsibility to fight the taliban has fallen on their shoulders. taliban advances in parts of the country underscore the reality that this is, and remains, a difficult fight. we understand that afghanistan still needs assistance. through nato's resolute support mission, we are working closely with the afghan national defense and security forces, and afghan security ministries to make sure that they are prepared for the critical mission of protecting the afghan people and setting the conditions for stability in this region. this extends beyond our u.s. military presence, and includes important financial contributions we will need to make in support of the afghan security forces in the years to come. the u.s. military's presence and financial sustainment will
enable the afghan security forces to continue security development as an agile and sustainable set of forces, capable of meeting afghan security challenges and partnering with us against terrorist exploitation of the region. it sends a strong message to the international communities that the united states is committed to afghanistan and intent on fostering stability over the long-term. we anticipate that the u.s. commitment will in turn garner the commitment of other members of the coalition. the u.s. forces have operated with. i've initiated consultations with key allies to secure their continued support for this mission. over time, we will reduce our footprint in afghanistan, but not our commitment to the country and its people. back in march, during his first official visit to the u.s., president ghanni came here to
the pentagon and did something very important to all of us here. he said thank you to the men and women of the u.s. military for the sacrifices they and their families have made over the past 14 years. he also visited arlington national cemetery to remember the fallen. it was an important message. today, we deliver our own ghanni andpresident the afghan people -- we are with you and support you, and we are not going to give up the gains we fought so hard to achieve. thank you, and i will now take some questions. >> what do you say to critics who suggest that the 5500 level is not enough to do both the counterterrorism mission and the train advise mission? if it enough and do you see that number as an enduring long-term troop level for some years to
come after? secretary carter: we did a lot of homework on this. it's the reason for that number of troops, but also, the locations that is important. i want to make sure we all keep track of the funding which is vitally important. those are the ingredients of continuing to prosecute the mission in a way that can be successful. that is what we judge, myself and chairman dunford and general campbell, now to the second part of your question which i think was his going to be 5500 forever? -- is it going to be 5500 forever? i can only say this, that is our best estimate now of what we should plan for and are planning for and budgeting for 2017.
in the future, and these will be decisions that a future president will take, in that timeframe, and i presume we will make judgments the way president obama has, to take into account circumstances as they pertain to the time and make adjustments that seem necessary. this is our best guess for what would be sufficient and a good basis for planning 2017. >> the president has talked about the end of the u.s. combat mission in afghanistan. does that mean that the u.s. military will no longer provide combat support to the afghan forces, such as the airstrikes? secretary carter: it's not a part of the mission, on a
day-to-day basis, to engage in combat. our mission on a day-to-day beis is and will continue to , first of all, counterterrorism operations such as the one we conducted with the afghans just a week ago, which was successful in destroying a major part of the remaining al qaeda presence in afghanistan. secondly, they train, advise, and assist part of the mission. the commander does retain the authority to use u.s. forces for force protection and an extremist support for afghan security forces. we don't know yet, everything that happened in kunduz. general campbell acknowledged
that a mistake was made. i have ordered him to conduct and he is committed to conduct a full and transparent investigation, and we will find out everything that happened there. but to answer your questions on the combat mission, it has ended and our mission now, on a day-to-day basis is to train, advise and assist, and counterterrorism and only to undertake other kinds of operations to protect their own forces or on an extreme situation. >> have you personally seen the reporter: have you personally seen the gun camera video from that airstrike or heard or read transcripts of any cockpit audio recording? secretary carter: i have gotten periodic reports, but i am waiting until the full investigation is done. this is not a situation read to put -- this is a situation where need to put all the facts together and look at all the data you are talking about.
there is other data, as well. we need to make sure that we have the full story. i want the full story. because i think we have promised the world that we would give the facts when we have them. i want to make sure that we have them so that we can give them any way that we have confidence. secondly, i think if there are people who need to be held accountable, they need to be held accountable on the basis of those facts. reporter: is the islamic state also a target for u.s. forces there? would it be purely for counterterrorism, or if you are denying them a safe haven, the president also said that the standard of success would be a lasting political settlement . that a full drawdown would come
down with a lasting settlement. carter: let me take that first part. counterterrorism is going to be part of the enduring mission there. whatever it takes to protect our country and make sure that afghanistan does not become a platform from which terrorism arises. i am confident we will take appropriate action and i would dare say i'm confident that future presidents would do the same. we have to protect our people, and we will do it. with respect to the mission, the president was speaking of the prospect for reconciliation between the afghan government and the taliban. that would be something we would hope for. it would provide, as he said, for a lasting political settlement in afghanistan. and we are fully supportive of
that effort, jim. afghan-led, it cannot be afghan-ledof an reconciliation effort. that is certainly the outcome to be hoped for, and that would lead to a lasting political settlement in afghanistan. in the meantime, we are committed to helping the afghan security forces defend themselves as long as there is a opposition to the government. but obviously, one hopes that that will come to an end. but that is not in our hands. the president is pointing to the fact that that would have to be part of the reconciliation process. reporter: mr. secretary how , would you judge the success of plan by the time the president leaves office? secondly what criteria or , metrics will you use to june
judge the success of the revised plan? in light of the announcements, do you think it was perhaps a misstep to have announced a predetermined timeline for withdrawing u.s. troops in afghanistan? secretary carter: you have to have a plan. we asked for that. you always have to have a plan at a certain time. we submit budgets those two years in advance. we have instructions to do, people to prepare for deployment, train up, it takes a certain about a time and planning. that said, i think the president has shown that he is willing to depart from the plan when circumstances suggest. and so there have been a host of circumstances since last year, of which one notable one just to pick one, was the length of the transition between the karzai government and the national
unity government which was a thatand unanticipated way set things back in time, so that's a factor. how would i measure success of the next year and a half? there are a couple of ingredients. one is how successful we are with our afghan partners at suppressing terrorism and carrying out strikes aimed at first of all, obviously, limiting al qaeda and anyone else who threatens the united states. a second big indicator would be how the afghan security forces are doing, both in terms of their combat performance and the ,ritical ingredient which is for which the year is very important, is the building of their own enablers.
their air force, the helicopter forces and so forth. these will be some of the things that we are aiming to achieve over the next year and i think the president's decision reflects the fact that it will be easier for us to achieve those things which afghanistan needs at a force level of 9800, then it would be if we round down faster. that is one of the reasons. gordon? gordon for old times , sake. i do need to go see the defense minister on the republic of korea, if anyone wants to join us. [laughter] the draw out plan, we are hearing that it's not a calendar-based plan. on the 5500 at the end of 2016.
but it sounds like it is a calendar-based plan, so i am wondering, if the commander at the time -- the end of 2016 says we don't want to go down to 5500, how big of a lift would be to reassess that? unless the 9800 state. secretary carter i can't say : that, it's a long time from now with a different set of circumstances. it gets back to the question that jim asked. any plan you make this reasonable to you at the time, this seems like a reasonable forecast. i am grateful that the president was willing to and eager to make an adjustment in a plan that there was, after all, over a year old, in light of circumstances which constantly change. that is the nature of this kind of conflict, of development, so i would assume that people here in the department of defense and
people in the rest of the government will always be willing to make adjustments to plans in a matter as grave as this, based on intervening circumstances. to me, that is common sense. thank you all very much. good to see you. peter? peter: for the record, the secretary did not just invite you to his meeting. that is closed to press, but we will give you a minute after the meeting. again thank you all for your , patience. i know i'm not as compelling as the secretary, but i will do my best to answer your questions on this and other issues. tara? reporter: given that extra
troops will be staying in afghanistan longer, is there is any chance that troops will be extended and what plan is going on in the building of the next units that will be deploying? peter: these are decisions that will have to be looked at over the next couple of weeks as this gets implemented. as you know, we are at 9800 right now. the expectation now is that that will be the number through most 2016. i can't say exactly how those deployments, how those rotations by the affected. at this particular moment, right now. reporter what up the chance that : troops currently in theiristan will see services be extended? peter we have to assess give : abilities, which ones we need on the ground, what our partners in nato and our allies will be
bringing to the effort. once we have a better sense of everyone's contributions, we will have a better idea of what the breakdown of those forces and whether or not those decisions need to be made. reporter: something the secretary said, that the mission has ended and afghanistan but later said there would be a counterterrorism mission that will be part of an enduring mission. if your forces have conducted 30 28 airstrikes alone in 2015, how has combat ended? all the evidence suggests it has not. peter the counterterrorism : mission is ongoing and we have an clear about that from the start. and it was highlighted by what we just did in the past few days. with a reference to the remnants forl qaeda of the operation october 7, this is an ongoing effort and remains the focus of the u.s. military in afghanistan and we will continue. it's a different effort, then what we were talking about
combat operations, specifically. reporter: you are fighting an al qaeda presence, how has combat ended? peter: it is counterterrorism. we are talking about a military effort that is focused in one particular direction, but we are trying to draw a distinction between what we do there in terms of counterterrorism, but the efforts of the afghan security forces to secure the country itself from the taliban, specifically. reporter: the differences between combat and counterterrorism? patrick: we talked about it a lot, from this podium and others, we talk about a counterterrorism mission, the target is specifically the remnants of al qaeda and the famous groups that want to do harm to the united states -- and the extremist groups that want to do harm to the united states. porter: switching topics for one question. does the u.s. military have any obligation to help u.s. backed rebels in syria? peter: again, this is a question we have gotten a lot. this is an effort where we are providing support to rebels on the ground in syria. we are providing air support and
have talked about changes to the program and we will continue to provide that support ongoing. jim, you had a question. [inaudible] reporter: what was the assessment in the meetings you , ifon with uniform officers -- if wede disbanded strategy had drawn out, what were some of the consequences that commanders here in afghanistan were concerned about? collapse of the afghan army and continually like kunduz are, are what -- or what? thatck: tony, in a sense they saw the successful training and assisting of the afghan security forces and the progress they have made, and they want to build on that and make sure we don't lose those gains. the afghan forces have made significant strides. it is still a very difficult
situation with people who are in a very difficult fight. and quite frankly some of them , have lost their lives, a significant number in afghanistan. this is a tremendous actor fights on the part of the afghan forces in the face of a serious challenge and we are trying to provide support for them so that the gains they made can be extended. they've got new capabilities moving in and determinations made by general campbell and others like secretary carter that this was the best way to build on those gains to put afghanistan on the most secure footing going forward. and so i would like to look at it, in terms of the progress being made as opposed to a hypothetical what if if we were to somehow draw down. reporter: it is not hypothetical. was kunduz not a warning sign that we need to keep the forces in? peter: it was not. these were deliberations that have been going on for some time. i think kunduz highlights the ongoing challenge, the difficult
fight underway. but this is not a response to what has happened in kunduz. this is a wider effort to put the afghan security forces in the best possible position going forward to secure the country for themselves, and prevent the kinds of situations we have seen in kunduz. to allow for them to be able to handle that on their own going forward. but the afghan forces taking the lead and dealing with this on their own is what we are trying to make sure happened. reporter: you are seeing a potentially crumbling force. peter you should see this as : providing support for a force that is getting better and better all the time. the secretary mentioned the aviation capabilities just now coming to the security forces. these are the kinds of things we want to build on and provide the afghan security forces on the best possible footing. reporter: my question is, can you elaborate on the reasons why the mission has been extended?
it seems that the afghan security forces are not strong enough, but did general campbell testified earlier that the terrorist threat is significant and serious and in some cases expanding. which of those factors weighed on the decision? peter: as you heard from the secretary they both weighed in in the sense that we still , believe that even really made progress, the afghan security forces need additional assistance. at the same time, there is a counterterrorism effort that the united states has a national interest in making sure that extremist groups in afghanistan do not have the ability to find a safe haven. and we will continue to focus our efforts on those groups. at the same time, we provide the assistance that we believe the afghan security forces need to go forward and we continue to work very closely with the afghan government. remember, we are there at their invitation. they have been strong partners in this. we support the efforts of the president.
it is a two track effort. as both the president and the secretary outlined earlier. reporter: peter at what point , are we going to get a breakdown in that 5500? how many years of support qu? how many contractors will be needed? peter: this will be determined in some measure by what we hear from our partners in terms of the contributions they are prepared to make. we were at nato and the secretary had a sense of conversations with some of the partners who are in the effort in afghanistan last week. we seek to couple that what they do and vice versa. the afghan forces themselves, we want to get a picture of what everybody is bringing to the table before determining exactly what the breakdown is. and these will be decisions from commanders on the ground that i expect we will get this in the coming weeks and months, but we can't give you the exact details until we have a better idea of what the contribution some other
countries are. reporter: the secretary said he has already had some early conversations with nato allies. of the onboarding with introducing more forces? peter the effort to support the : afghani government and i can tell you that the secretary left his meetings in nato very confident that other partners and allies would be stepping forward with their own contributions, making their own contributions on behalf of this effort. but again we will leave it to , those partners and allies to speak for themselves as to what they can bring to this effort. reporter: if they don't step the 9800 be enough to complete the mission?
peter we are confident that our : allies and partners will bring a significant contribution to this effort and will be able to support the afghan security forces and the government. reporter: yes, thanks. the secretary said this was an opportunity to finish what we started. could you give us a sense of what role did eastern pakistan had or to what extent that has come up, given that how we've seen these two issues are not really separate, one would think they would be key to all of this going forward. can you give us a sense of whether that has been part of this discussion. or is nato in and of itself try to figure out a way? peter: everyone involved in this effort is trying to take a comprehensive look at the picture and trying to involve pakistan in a conversation has been important in the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan is important going forward. that is just one component of
this larger picture. so i think this is, looking at the situation on the ground right now, this is what the president and the secretary and the military leadership here have come to the conclusion, we can best support the afghan government going forward and also maintain the counterterrorism mission as well. pakistan is important. part of the conversation going forward, it's not the only part. obviously. reporter: i would like to follow-up on tom's question and your answer to it. you said one of the things you are looking at with the coalition partners was in terms of what they were bringing and how you came to the 5500 number if you do not know what the coalition members are giving. that is, if the u.k. offers mean anotherat 1000 of the 5500 go to do something else?
the appearance that this is a numbers-driven -- could you help me understand how you came up with the 5500 number if you don't know what the other partners will be doing? peter: i think it's fair to say that general campbell and the secretary in his conversation as has a good picture of the level of commitment from these other countries. we will not speak for them, but i think a factor that larger picture into this decision at his recommendations to the president. we do not have the exact level of detail, you are right. but we have a pretty good picture of the willingness of these other countries to step forward. they have been willing to do so in the past and have made public statements on their own about the willingness to go forward. but in terms of the exact breakdown, nancy, and their capabilities, and some of them are playing specific roles now, those are the sorts of things that will help us get a better sense of tom's question about the exact breakdown of how many of these forces will be doing
, for example force protection , as opposed to the train and advise role, how many will be counterterrorism. we will get more of those granular details, we just don't have the right now. reporter: do you have estimates of that kind of breakdown? peter: i cannot. i want to defer to our nato allies to be able to explain what they plan to do themselves. going forward, once we have that, we will have a better idea. carter metecretary with the south korean president this morning. issues raised -- peter the secretary is going to : be in with the minister of defense from south korea.
i know they had a productive meeting this morning. we will have a more complete readout on both meetings at the conclusion. i know the secretary felt that was a great opportunity to reaffirm the alliance between the united states and south korea and the ironclad commitment the united states has to south korea's defense. i think you will get more from the readout at the conclusion of these talks. but it's a great opportunity for the secretary to not only meet with the defense, but also the president, as well. i don't know if you saw the full honor cordon this morning. we don't normally do that. it's a nice moment on a beautiful day to welcome the very strong ally to the united states. reporter: i am just curious, when are we going to get any of the information about these reports from kunduz? we were told last week that it would be a couple of days. but the preliminary report by
nato, we were told a couple of days and now it's approaching two weeks. when are we going to get the information? peter i've asked some of these : same questions myself, my understanding is that it will take a few more days. it could be the beginning of next week when we have some initial, preliminary findings. you made a good point. that the investigation as general campbell as spelled it out, it will take more time in the initial assessment is looking specifically to the issue of civilian casualties. the expectation we have is that early next week we will build a get some information to you. general campbell and his team will be able to share details at that time. do you have any idea about the coalition forces, if they have any connection with the forces in the interior? details i think
colonel laurent share the d with you about the airdrop, that it went successfully and that ammunition and other equipment was dropped on the 11th, and that it was recovered at that time by some very and forces and some kurdish forces. but i don't know exactly where it went. reporter: have they picked up some of the ammunition dropped on syria? peter: my understanding is that it simply went to syrian arab forces and that it -- there were also opposition forces that were able to recover some of the weaponry as well. kurdish forces. reporter: do you have any information about any recent navigation operations? peter: no. continues toetary
say, the united states will operate in whatever international law allows and that includes, no exception -- no exception in the south china sea. i know the ambassador testified and we will continue to look at all aspects of our options available to us in the south china sea and that part of the world. and i'm not going to relate to operations that are underway. just to state the larger issue that the secretary has consistently mentioned the capability to fly, sale, and internationalre law allows. reporter: after the u.s. began its withdrawal, obama announced the timeline.
we see as fight and violence. the taliban reporting they have reached farther than any point since 2001. we've seen the telegram, the u.n. reporting of the have a wider reach today. we see them taking cities like kunduz. is it the assessment of this building that the pace of withdrawal is responsible some of these setbacks and that is part of the readjustment? peter: i think what you heard from the secretary and the president today is that the adjustments being made here reflect the assessment that certain troop levels and capabilities would best be moved forward, by maintaining this troop level at this particular moment in time while still setting the target of the president did for 5500 by the time he leaves office in 2017. that that will foster the capabilities necessary for the afghan forces to protect the
country on the road. they had their first fighting season in the lead on their own. they will have a second one and this will give them, secretary carter, military leadership here the best opportunity to secure the country on their own. and to do so, make this a more stable country moving forward and a safer country for the people of afghanistan. reporter: just to clarify. you said the reassessment was based on the facts on the ground. those are the setbacks, but any type of assessment there were , concerns that the pace of withdrawal continues at the pace it was set at, then we would see more setbacks. peter i think there was concern, : as we mentioned, that the security forces still needed additional assistance. they needed additional training. they are just getting something abilities online -- just getting some capabilities online. at this particular moment in time, it would be helpful for
the afghan government. they have asked us for this kind of assistance. we also have some circumstances separate and apart that can treated to this decision. one was the extended. . period of time before the government was able to form. that was a fact we had not factored in before. this is the best way to build on the progress of the afghan security forces have made, and also to be candid, to make sure that there is not a setback going forward. there is still a dangerous place. people are losing their lives. afghan forces, in particular. this is, again, an effort for the u.s. to provide that kind of assistance to move the afghan security forces onto a firmer urer footing going
forward in the best interest of the people of afghanistan. that is the kind of assistance we are trying to provide. i've got time for two more. i have to go to this meeting, as well. in the back. reporter: it is is my understanding that private contractors about double what is it is right now. , do you envision them to be at that level, even with the drawdown? peter i can't tell you with : certainty. contractors have been part of the effort in afghanistan for some time. i would venture to say that i imagine they will be part of this effort going forward, but i can't give you the specific number. if you would like i will try to , circle back as to what that number is now. but i don't have it up here at the podium. last one in the middle. reporter next year, will be the breakdown he expected to be the same? were there any mission areas targeted that need more
attention or troops, like more trainers or vice versa? peter: these are going back to nancy and tom's questions, the exact breakdown will be determined by commanders on the ground once they determine what our nato allies are bringing to this effort as well. but you can be sure that there will certainly be folks in the counterterrorism effort and a separate group of people whose main focus will be on training and advising the afghan security forces. and then there will be others for force protection purposes to make sure our forces on the ground remain as safe as possible in afghanistan. and with that, i'm going to be late. last one. reporter: is there any purpose with the russian incident? have there been any other close calls between u.s. aircraft in syria? are closethink we
with the russians regarding flight safety in syria. some details have been worked out after yesterday with the call. but there was more progress made yesterday. the second part of your question again question mar? reporter: have there been any more close calls since saturday? peter: to my understanding, there have been no more close calls, any encounters that i have been made aware of that would cause us to have killer concern. -- particular concern. we are hoping safety protocols to be put in place as quickly as possible so we don't have to worry about this going forward. i have to go, sorry. i've got to go, sorry. announcer: tomorrow night on c-span, women and foreign policy. it is a conference hosted by the -- schoolat texas a&m at texas a&m university.
here is a preview. when i first joined the pentagon any 90's with the clinton administration -- it was a lonely thing, being a woman leader at the time. i said, let's have a lunch for all of the senior women leaders at the pentagon. we sat at one table. there was eight or 10. wasweeks afterwards, there conspiracy. about the women getting together and having lunch. what were they plotting? what was going on? now, if you invited all of the women leaders in the pentagon, you would overflow the second dining room. that is good. i wast the highest levels still often the only woman in the room for many meetings. i think it is improving.
still, women are definitely minority. i think progress of the 1990's, better now than it was. more progress to be made. announcer: more with michelle for now tomorrow night on c-span. watch anytime online is the span.org -- online at c-span.org. beginning, iom the look in the morning -- mirror and i do not see a president. my response to that was, quit looking in a mirror. from the beginning he said that this is something i never thought about. announcer: this sunday night on q&a, don cotman on his book, run mitch run. it was about mitch daniels and his decision not to run for president in 2012. >> i was convinced towards the
end of the process that he is very can additive -- competitive. i think if you made the decision to do that, he would've had his heart and will into it. the beginning, it is not something he went after. night at 8:00day eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. announcer: known as the city of good new -- neighborhoods. we explore the history and literary life of local new york -- buffalo, new york. we will visit the public library. there are handwritten manuscripts of the adventures of huckleberry finn. we will then review against the grain. >> the irish settled because they were desperate. they came over during the
famine. things were still not great. it would take one relative to find out about these wonderful jobs along the waterfront, working in the mills or grain elevators. word we get to ireland, you want to come to buffalo? you want to -- you were not going to be rich, but you would be steadily employed. it was called the first ward because when buffalo was first created it was divided into five political wards. in this area along the buffalo river, that has always been the first. announcer: on american history tv, president mckinley was assassinated in buffalo. we will to her the museum, if during the exhibit features event surrounding his death, and the gun used to shoot the president. then discover the history of the ront.lo waterf
city.are at the silo this was originally built for different company. they are all owned by rick smith now. besides being regenerated for different purposes for art, music, we do history tours. we take people around the elevators and tell the story of buffalo's history. there are poetry readings, all sorts of different uses. announcer: see all of our programs from buffalo, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on c-span3. the c-span cities tour, working with our cable affiliate and visiting cities across the country. announcer: at the steamboat freedom institute conference, ceos discuss the effect of the
tax code on business in america. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> thank you, very much. we hope the next hour and 15 minutes is enjoyable. we think it will be. as moderator, i wish i had an hour and 15 minutes with each one of these people here. we have a very distinguished panel. let me first introduce peter coors. pete is chairman of vice chairman of coors. he is a colorado native. we like that. probably the most recognizable colorado native we have in colorado right now. [applause] the coors name has become synonymous with colorado.
and pete, i think you and your family for that. coors brewing is a tradition that stretches over five generations of family. it was started by his great-grandfather in 1873. it is a pretty amazing legacy. in addition to his corporate responsibilities, he has held leadership positions in american enterprise institute, boy scouts of america, international chapter of young presidents organization, the denver art museum, ducks unlimited, and as cororsnt of the adolph foundation. i want to mention one other great thing about pete and that family who did a tremendous amount of philanthropy and support for our state and nation and our culture. it is unmatched. [applause] he is far too humble to mention the volumes of awards and
recognitions that he personally, and the family, and company, have received. i will mention one that i thought was particularly appropriate. in 2010, he was named as citizen of the west. pete coors thank you very much , for being with us. [applause] our second panelist is paul dietzel. he is an entrepreneur extraordinaire. three years ago he founded a company called antidote. it is a technology company headquartered in baton rouge, louisiana. he was also a 2014 candidate for the louisiana congressional seat in district 6. antidote today, three years later, it is the leading software platform for campaigns in the u.s., with more members
of congress using it then any other software system for online contributions. they give little campaigns, religious organizations, and nonprofits to securely collect donations. they have collected already in just three years donations in all 50 states, and 23 nations. a pretty amazing record. if his name seems familiar to you somehow, it is with good reason. his grandfather was the legendary coach of the 1959 national championship team at lsu, coach of the year, later coached at west point and the university of south carolina. welcome, paul dietzel. [applause] my good friend heidi goodall has a good story. she is the founder and ceo of camp bowow. the largest pet care franchise
in north america. heidi's was not an easy path to success. she lost her husband in a plane crash when he was 25 years old. in fact, on his birthday. close to being out of money and hope, heidi opened her first franchise facility in 2000 in denver. she now has over 200 franchises. camp bowow is one of the largest women-led franchises in the country and one of the fastest-growing brands in the pet care industry and the leader in that sector. she was recently recognized as one of the 10 most promising entrepreneurs. in her spare time, she works at the colorado foundation. she serves on the advisory board for the leadership program of
the rockies. she also founded a nonprofit that she calls moms fight back, a nonprofit to help empower moms to make social change and become important players in colorado. she is a mom of four children. welcome, heidi. [applause] jim nyman is the vice president and ceo of nyman enterprises. it was founded in 1936 by his grandfather. with two facilities in south dakota, one in wyoming, and one in our own montrose, colorado the nyman family is also in the , ranging business and owns a golf club in wyoming. and heartland would helots in south dakota. his son is a fourth-generation
of nymans who work in the company. congratulations to another family-owned business. they have been recognized by the small business administration, and as a small business person of the year. they have been recognized by the united states forest service. his leadership positions past and present, the wyoming occupational health and safety commission, the wyoming economic development and stabilization board, independent forest products association, president of the university of wyoming board of trustees, chairman of the university of wyoming school of environmental national resources, on and on and on, last and certainly not least, he is on the economic advisory board for the federal reserve bank of kansas city. ladies and gentlemen i think you , would agree that we have an exceptional panel here today. [applause]
i will invite each candidate to make remarks on the state of affairs. i think it is important to share today. we will get right into question. pete, you go first. , for thenk you, bob elaborate and unnecessary introduction. why don't you guys say something about yourselves? i can see a lot of time because he didn't. the one thing left out was that i had the privilege of being a candidate for the u.s. senate in 2004. and many of you are helpful in that. [applause] we all lost our last elections, unfortunately. [laughter] i think we will get details on
the business through the day. paul: i look to these business leaders to see what i can become throughout the next 10-15 years of my life. looking out into the business environment, the climate of our country, it is really fascinating to me, even five years ago, it was easier than today to start businesses. you look at the amount of pages in the taxco, the amount of regulations, that makes it harder for entrepreneurs to jump in and great business. you look at every day the government is picking on businesses. uber recently. one of the things we have to do is really unlock our innovators,
the next generation. we have to get the next generation of leaders and innovators activated and involved and engaged. that is why i am excited to see so many millennial's speaking. a handful, is a pleasure to be here with you. i look forward to being a lookout. bob: heidi? [applause] heidi: i know a lot of you in the room. i think most of you know how passionate i am about entrepreneurship and innovation. i believe that is the key to unlocking potential in our country. paul said it well, our youth need to be encouraged and excited. i spend a lot of time speaking to college and high school kids about the beauty of starting your own business. how they can do it with a click of the mouse or on their phone sitting at home, instead of watching tv. but i think it is unfortunate that the business environment is
not very good for starting your own anymore. it is a lot different since when ow 16 yearsamp bow ago. government overreach, taxes -- it is so complicated. my husband jason is starting a new barbecue restaurant. and just starting a single unit restaurant has been mindnumbing. very reminiscent of when we started camp bowow, but far worse. my other passion in his mom's and kids, keeping it great. i really want to encourage moms in colorado to raise their hands and be the change they want to see in the world. i think we can really lift them up and give them a voice. i think they are the swing vote in colorado. we will see how that goes. bob: thank you, heidi. [applause]