tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 11, 2013 5:00am-7:01am EST
earlier, you have been in the forefront of helping jordan. you have been our voice as well. thank you enough and for your support. thankould say and administration. they are doing a good job. we thank them and pushing other countries to help and assist. we want to show how important it is not only from the humanitarian point of view, but a civilian point of view. helped, then there were be conducive ambience for terrorism.
thank you. >> thank you. this is certainly fair to say that members of the senate share their concern about regional stability. we want to do everything we can to support you. one of the formulations committee had a meeting. one of the issues that was talked about was the concern about the spread of polio outbreak. an ambassador spoke about the effort to immunize children. and wonder if anyone could speak about whether the outbreak is under control whether there is more that needs to be done to address it. >> it is not under control. the situation in serious is out of control. eradicated.
we are now in a situation where ... and medical conditions that can transcend the borders. this is another reason why we have to put so many resources into the medical assistant in. -- medical system. people are common across from syria to jordan to seek assistance. have not been working for six months or 12 months. jordan is seeing an increase and 20%.northern areas by jordan does not have enough support and money to pay for pharmaceuticals or joint populations. itsone jordan to keep borders open. we want them to accept refugees. the refugees coming across our the most vulnerable. we are seeing cases of polio
and ining in numbers rural the mosque us. these people will continue to come in seeking assistance in this treatment. it is a joint effort. had a mass information campaign that has to be followed through. it will start emerging again. these are the costs that have not often been taken into account. bring you back to the precrisis level is not sufficient. the health situation in jordan is deteriorating. >> my time is up. >> [indiscernible]
help. been a big and the world health organization, too. as much as we do, we need everything. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for having a hearing. following up on that in regards situations, weof are in the process of trying to do the very best. i think the united states can be very proud of their efforts as or as sending monetarily otherwise. what are other challenges besides sending money? you mentioned health issues. can you comment on some of the other things if you are fortunate to have a resolution?
these people won't go home overnight. can you comment on some of the aims besides monetary aid? you mentioned water. >> thank you. thank you for the question. -- is in need of help and support. it is a huge load on our health care. you can see it. and electricity, for example. that importsountry 96% of its gas from outside market prices. the electricity is being subsidized. we are paying a lot in terms of
energies. -- this is thet fourth largest city in jordan. needs to be served. needsmp nin electricity to be lit all the time so that they can take care of the residence over there. we need the generation of electricity and energy bills is enormous. every time we had to buy, market satisfy andd to cater to the needs of the jordanians. in jordan.s situated
they are in need as well. they need the electricity and water. this is a camp that is sitting on our best actor for -- apple quifer. if polluted, there would be a high price for years to come. help jordan to be able to help the communities that are helping the refugees. projects.r own this is what they need in terms schools. and beds and everything that you can think of. have lost many jobs to syrians. this is a lot for a country that
has its own version in terms of economic rises. help is needed. it will enable us to think and plan and at the same time be able to seek more funds for the ist communities that jordan working on. it is very accurate. and it saysrategy those are the needs. that is exactly what is happening on the ground. >> thank you. >> mr. ambassador, you said in your testimony that if you had to continue to accommodate the extraordinary number of refugees and had testimony that to your surprise might be a whole much more than the time under things continue on, you said that you to have aorced
different approach. can you elaborate on what that different approach would be? iswhat i was trying to say we are in a disastrous situation in terms of numbers. lebanon is a country that is hosting the highest number of refugees, of syrian refugees. point 3 million. -- 1.3 million. physically, we cannot host a we are in need of every single thing in terms of education, physically, we cannot host. we are in need of every single thing in terms of education, workers. unemployment, competition. , i emphasize that we are
keeping our borders open and we intend to keep them open often, when you reach -- >> when you reach a limit. >> i was talking physically. , i have called it a cry of pain, but we do not intend to close our borders. appease to the community action -- that they should come to help and enable us -- us to arrive to a limit physically. >> does the international community understand the nature of the crisis with the neighbors?
fromd testimony like this the ambassadors saying that there is a limit. when the limit is reached, even if they do not want to do whatever, they will have to do things differently. a good job of making the international community understand that we are truly reaching that crisis point? it sounds like that the international community, the neighbors, you put out a pretty startling statistic for future refugees that even they do not understand. it sounds like -- perhaps we're lagging somewhere there. moved with as has speed and on a scale that nobody anticipated in 2011. number ofach the 50,000 refugees in limit on, the view then was that this was
stretching capacity. we are now almost, if you include syrians who are in the country prior to the conflict, we have reached 1.3 million. the elasticity of the absorption capacity is really in a position to say -- study undertaken by the world bank of the united nations in august-september pointed to the costs to the people of lebanon. that in my experience has been one of the earliest studies ever done in such a refugee situation. we hope that has gained attention. toknow that it led in part the creation of the friends of lebanon group that is meeting in in york that happened september. we wish that the issue did gain greater accra action -- traction
than it has. the facts are relatively unique to address. >> thank you. hopefully that is the purpose of this hearing, that we might make the issue rise to the surface. thank you. thank you, senator graham. thank you for your leadership on this issue. thank you to you and chairman leahy for holding this hearing today. ,hey did to our many witnesses especially the ambassadors for their services and from there respect to its -- perspectives. challengesery real for the people of lebanon and jordan. we try to work together to make sure refugees are being with respect and humanity. we want to resolve this grinding
and terrible civil war. there is a refugee camp that we visited earlier. it was a deeply moving event. i have never seen one of this gale. the folks in it had gone through so much. we were so engaged and passionate -- they were so engaged and passionate about what they expected the united states would do. it has stayed with me for a while. if i could briefly at the offset , this is unusual. they have continued to exceed any expectations. what is being done to keep track of or register information -- forgive me if i missed this brief testimony -- what more
could we do to insist across international community united that were noters duplicating efforts and we're doing everything we can to be as effective and as responsible elaborate tediously -- collaboratively? i will then go to the ambassadors. mr. harper. it is good to be here in washington and also update you on where we stand after your visit to the camp. keepwe're doing is to track of the refugees as working close of the government of jordan. another example of the close relationship we have come about to have a joint registration system which are based on biometrics. the first time every refugee in --dan -- probably february
will be registered by biometrics. out of the 600 plus thousands who have been registered since march 2011, we have registered several thousand. we are registering by the day. i believe we have got the biggest registration center in the most and probably advance registration center in the world in jordan. it is something we have been proud of. that way the syrians can be registered. accessequired to jordan's free medical system and education. previously documents used to be border.om the
with this system, the error being returned to refugees. we're moving in the right way. are being returned to refugees. we are moving in the right way. part of the assessment that we do is that we undertake phone visits as well. one of the issues is that the vast majority of refugees are in basements. 10% of the population lives in basements. have undertaken 70,000 home visits. there is no other refugee operation in the world where an organization has undertaken 17,000 home visits and the refugees are in the urban environment. we have a good understanding of where they are and what their needs are. the problem is we do not necessarily have the means to address those needs. bottom line -- we are tracking that refugees by the time they
cross the border and introducing the most modern, accountable system to keep track of them and to help them where we can. whatrgive me if i may -- is the u.s. doing to ensure that we are avoiding duplication of efforts of doing a better job of delivering systems within the boundaries of syria to reduce outflows? what are major challenges you face a week in help in some way? would provide funding through multilateral organizations like unicef were food program. they have comprehensive plans and how to address the highest priority needs. they also pull together appeals for aid for the region. for this calendar year that is about to end, the appeal called for $4.4 billion at the end of
2013. the $1.3 billion that the u.s. has been able to get rings to the generosity of the american people is channeled through this subcommittee. it has made a major contribution. as was said earlier, only two thirds of the funding has been raised. in addition to providing assistance through these important multilateral partners and nongovernmental organizations who can sometimes be very nimble and adjust gaps, we also are providing aid to these close partners like jordan to help them handle the refugees at the same time as a providing services to their own poor citizens who need help. there stretching their services to reach everyone.
we are moving on several fronts at once. we know how precious they are. we cannot waste them. >> thank you. i'm from the small state of delaware that is smaller even than lebanon. the services that you have provided so far, it is of great concern to me, the humanitarian impact --ng for the to what extent has the significant refugee inflow exacerbated some of the tensions, some of the sick terry
but that geneva could produce something. meanwhile, refugees are in lebanon. some equilibrium in lebanon. so for, we have not been interfering in this. a i said, we're staying for long time. that puts a lot of pressure on lebanon, on our security forces and on the internal security forces to keep law and order and to keep people safe and to try to help them for the humanitarian needs. what can you do? theuld like to thank american consulates and administration for their valuable assistance. congressng that
provided to lebanon was essential for saving lives and copeelp lebanon to quote -- with this crisis. the american assistance is the highest for any single one country. it has -- we thank you for that. gingrich or to keep going. -- we encourage you to keep going. that is why we are here today. pe's continue to help -- lease continue to help. that is how i see it. >> thank you. ambassador, i visited jordan twice. i had a number of meetings there and here.
the king has been a remarkable partner. the people of jordan and have absorbed their significant challenges in terms of refugees and the strategic challenges for jordan as well. it was very moved by his personal appeal for our ongoing support. turkey has the courage or increased humanitarian relief in the keeping syrians within syria that includes some solution to this conflict. it is a real challenge. to help an interest move the economy forward. i'm also concerned about the
impact on jordan. >> thank you, senator. it takes amazing moments for visiting the camps. we have had longer's a partnership and strategic alliance. -- long years of partnership and strategic alliance. is a political issue that has a humanitarian aspect. this is the product of a dire, political situation.
this is an escalating situation inside syria that is acting like a magnet. it is making gift again issues related to our security -- yet again issues to our security -- we are strong. we are resilient. that is why we are hosting .efugees in a country we are committed to opening our borders. thatillingly, we are doing . but if the situation comes to a point where we cannot any longer , it becomes an actual physical sense.
nevertheless, we are committed to that. open.rders are our schools and hospitals are wide open. please bear in mind that we is living inraq jordan. this is a country that is able to bring together all those who are in need. this is where our common values you are awe share -- country that extends everything it has even with financial budget matters. each and every office that i in spite of the difficulties, jordan is a
priority. i cannot thank you enough. we are able to come across this. i cannot but applaud the good doing,at the u.n. is especially the help of you in your team. -- and your team. they are there every minute with our armed forces. this is a moment for me to thank you and your team and your dedication to those in jordan and for helping the refugees. know that this is a situation that you need to act. we are working hand in hand. is is becoming more like a brotherhood. -- this is becoming more like a brotherhood.
again this is a strong, resilient country that is able to take all of this and stay outside of the conflict, safe and secure. nightre working day and to make sure that this country is safe and able to open its doors more for anyone who is in need. >> thank you. thank you so much for the work that you are doing. that is helping make some of this possible. it is the foundation of our and religious tradition that says hospitality is no stranger to the orphan or the widow. the skill that you are experiencing these exceptional -- we are grateful for the example that you showed to the world of sustaining this
hospitality even under incredibly different circumstances -- difficult circumstances. thank you. >> i would agree with that. i thank all of you for the job. doing. it is hard to imagine the size and scale of the camps that you visited. i'm glad that we got to this about some of the cities. in some cases these are large cities. things are being provided as fast as possible. again, really are doing a good job of providing the necessary resources. everyone is working together. we appreciate it. we will do anything we can to help you in your efforts. the hearing record will remain open until 5 p.m. friday,
december 13. adjourat, the hearing is ned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> on c-span this morning, remarks by defense intelligence agency director lieutenant general michael flynn. paul ryanllowed by and patty murray and the budget agreement. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, "washington journal" looks at expiring unemployment benefits, the budget deal, and the one-
year anniversary of the sandy hook school shooting. health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius is on capitol hill today to update lawmakers on the health care law's implementation and fixes to healthcare.gov. you can see her testimony at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. we will take your comments at #cspanchat and on facebook. more oversight of u.s. surveillance programs later on today when the senate judiciary committee hears from nsa director keith alexander. live coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. we will take your comments at #c spanchat and on facebook. the other thing that we could do to test whether roosevelt made a difference or not is use my counterfactual history test.
suppose a plausible alternative had been president. the moderate republican internationalist who ran against 1940.elt in suppose the republicans had nominated charles lindbergh, who was a great aviation hero. he was very isolationist and quite synthetic to hitler's germany. if you had a president lindbergh instead of a president roosevelt, i think history would have turned out quite differently. i doubt he would have made the preparations that roosevelt made. b, i doubt that after japan attacked the u.s. that he would have oriented the war towards europe rather than keeping it focused just on asia. in that sense, franklin roosevelt made a big difference. >> foreign policy in 20th century of individual leadership. sunday at 730 eastern and
pacific, part of american history tv on c-span3. intelligence agency director lieutenant general haeckel flynn spoke at the institute of world -- general michael flynn spoke at the institute of world politics. this is just over one hour. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. my name is john, i am president of the institute. for those of you who are new to the institute of world politics, i would like to introduce us and our mission. we're an independent graduate school of national security and international affairs. we specialize in teaching the arts of statecraft.
by which we mean the various instruments of national power, military strategy, intelligence, counterintelligence, diplomacy, public diplomacy and soft power such as cultural diplomacy, information policy, political action and that sort of thing. the economic strategy, and how all of these arts are integrated into overall national strategy. our philosophy is that if you study and master many of these fields which are almost never studied, and integrate them together, you minimize the necessity of having to use force to defend our country and civilization. and its most vital interests. it is a great pleasure today to have a very distinguished speaker for an event we have been conducting for 18 years now. our pearl harbor day commemoration.
we at iwp do this to keep some historical memory and historical lessons alive, especially during a period in our culture where there has been a precipitous drop in the study of history. people are mostly studying social history and not diplomatic, military, intellectual, economic, and political history. it is a regrettable thing. americans tend to be ahistorical people as a cultural matter, we are very forward-looking. looking to solve problems in the future. it is worthwhile so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, that we should pay attention to some of the transformative events that have taught us some great lessons. the surprise attack on pearl harbor is one of those events
which helped propel the u.s. into a global role. and which teaches us many lessons about intelligence, vigilance, and national security preparedness. to help elucidate some of the lessons of the past, we have a great friend of iwp here today, lieutenant general michael flynn. general flynn is one of america's foremost intelligence officers. he has been associated with different units of the u.s. army and most notably the 82nd airborne. in earlier parts of his career, he was deployed to grenada and haiti. later, to iraq and afghanistan. he has had an array of senior intelligence appointment, including director of intelligence for the joint special operations command. director of intelligence for
the u.s. central command. director of intelligence of the joint staff. director of intelligence for the international security assistance force in afghanistan, which meant basically that he was in charge of u.s. military intelligence in the afghan war. most recently, he has served as the assistant director of national intelligence for partner engagement. in 2012, he was nominated to be the 18th director of the defense intelligence agency. while he was -- to put a little substance behind this remarkable resume, general flynn, while in afghanistan, had come to the conclusion that we were concentrating more and our intelligence collection efforts on finding information about ied networks. improvised explosive devices,
which were the main killers of american troops. the problem was that this was being done, in his estimation, at the expense of understanding the local political, cultural, strategic conditions in the valleys, the villages, and the tribes. in the counterinsurgency war we were conducting, which necessitated understanding relationships with those tribes, developing intelligence sources with them, being able to find the local political collaboration safe haven for troops and so on. it was essential to understand the human terrain, which is why the army developed and pioneered the human terrain initiative. when one would have thought that the civilian agencies might have been more active in collection
of what we call "cultural intelligence." general flynn was the pioneer in conceiving and implementing this copernican revolution in intelligence strategy in afghanistan. it is the result of somebody who has not only had an incredible career, he has three graduate degrees, including one from the u.s. naval war college. we were proud to present him with an honorary degree a couple years ago. i should not neglect that general flynn has been given many awards, including the superior service medal with three oak leaf clusters.
oaklegion of merit with an cluster. the legion of merit. the meritorious service medal and others that are now too numerous to mention. general flynn is a great friend of this school and we are honored that you could join us. the floor is yours. >> thank you. [applause] great. before i get into some formal remarks, everybody got handed out one of these. you got it when you walk in. it is a little pamphlet about the defense intelligence agency. a little bit about who we are and what we are doing on behalf of national security. to give you some idea about the direction of one of the big 5 agencies that we have that are every day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week in 142 countries around the world with 17,000
people, doing the nation's business. we have some talented men and women and i will talk about them. first, john, thank you very much. i want to thank for the great introduction. i want to thank the institute of world politics and the staff that puts these things on. i think it is a really important endeavor that we keep doing this. the institute of world politics and your personal dedication to hosting this annual lecture is a testament to the institute's commitment to training a new generation of critical thinkers. the professionals in this room who recognize the value of studying history when confronting modern issues of national security and world politics. as early as 1932, there was a book called "the great pacific war," which begins with a surprise attack on pearl harbor. part of the curriculum at the u.s. naval war college, an
institute from which i have a graduate degree. in march of 1931, intelligence reports warn of a possibility of a preemptive attack on the u.s. fleet by japan. intelligenceignals intercepted in late november, 1941, indicated japanese intentions, and we now know that last-minute descriptions of -- yptions ofe decrptyu japanese diplomatic communications on december 6, 1941, resulted in a warning to u.s. pacific commanders received 28. it was sent via commercial western union telegram and sat unread in the inbox of the u.s. naval intelligence official in honolulu because it had not been marked urgent. amazing. in hindsight, the events provided ample warning of the danger that lie ahead. a lesson of pearl harbor is not about failure to collect intelligence, but rather one of getting that intelligence into the hands of the people that need it. our decision-makers.
the limiting factor on the intelligence community leading up to pearl harbor was are -- was arguably its inefficiency and disjointed mess -- and disjointedness. the march of technology continuously enhances our technology to handle data, the advances that have helped failures lead to new challenges today, that is part of what i will talk about. where the intelligence community was previously limited by its technical ability to manage a relatively small volume of information, it is now challenged by its collective ability to filter, analyze, synthesize, and share relevant intelligence from a vast universe of information. today, with all the of the data and reports at our fingertips, it is critical we pull together the right information in the right way at the right time. that is a tough thing to do, believe me. it requires steady discipline, exactly what the institute of world politics, i believe, is about. and for many students in here, many of whom are part of our military forces, i know the army has a great fellowship and a
know you have had special operations forces officers here in the past. you do not realize it until you leave the investment our department is putting in you. in some cases, you do not know it until a couple of years later. i would tell you the other thing is it requires reliable tradecraft. i know in some of the academic courses you have, it is about trade and statecraft. it also requires a committed to cultivating a sophisticated workforce. that is an important aspect of what this institution does. it is being ready to use all of the tools at our disposal by providing decision advantage to our leadership. we must begin looking at the war ahead of us, emerging
challenges, and prepare our enterprise to answer questions not yet being asked. we are encountering a new operational environment, one with the east, west, balance of the world is being challenged where war fighters are more likely to be deployed in the urban mountain space in the mountains, deserts, and jungles of the past. the challenging global landscape is having all of us re-examine priorities and transform ourselves for the future. given the rapidly changing security environment and reflecting on the past, i would like to take the next few minutes to walk through some of the challenges that dia are focused on and how we are reshaping the defense intelligence enterprise to meet the needs. why change? there are two reasons why. first, resources are being
constantly reduced right now. you are in an era of huge fiscal constraint. two, at the same time, we have skyrocketing intelligence requirements. sequestration seems to be here to stay. we will continue to have to make tough decisions as a result of that. the operational environment has no sympathy for our fiscal plight and is more complex than ever. the middle east continues to command our attention as we are simultaneously rebalancing to asia and refocusing on new threats to africa, all the while, the threat of cyber presents a constant threat with far-reaching implications. it is all over the media, all over the news today. why change? there are really four global trends occurring and have been occurring since really post- world war ii. i will talk to two of them specifically. those four have to do with population, technology, resources, and economic trends. the world we live in is
transforming at an unprecedented rate. the intelligence community must be prepared for these new challenges. the nexus of power is shifting. given our global leadership role in the world, developing countries require our utmost attention. threats are no longer relegated to the nationstates. non-nationstate actors have the potential to exert disproportionate force via cyber and other weapons of mass distraction platforms. in terms of one of these megatrends, and i will talk to two of them, the first has to do with population. as this graft builds out, it goes from 1800 to 2050. it gives you perspective back a couple hundred years and takes us to 2050 and put it into the perspective of the discussion in play today, world war ii notes, pearl harbor, 1950 was the first global census ever taken, the first time the world was ever counted.
2010 was the second time. the way i would describe it is the world is at a crossroads today and in the future. you see a potential change really over the last 50 or 60 years. in 2008, 50% of the world's population became urbanized. by 2050, there is estimated to be 10 billion people on the planet, over three times as many as was counted in 1950. in a very short time, exponential growth of this population. by 2050, there will be over 700 cities with one million or more people in them. in 1800, there were only three. 1950, there were 74. today, there are nearly 500. again, one of the things brought out about this graph, you see a rise of all of this demographic shifts and increases in population. a lot of what we are seeing
today in these challenges is what we're facing. i will talk to some of these. trends such as these are creating new global dynamics we do not yet understand. instead, today and in the future, we need to look to help shape and influence behavior by trying to control it. maintaining force residents globally has proven to be too costly. we must also expand upon and create new partnerships with allies and friends around the world. defense intelligence agency has numerous bilateral and multilateral intelligence relationships, defense department, ministers of defense, and, around the world. we have them in every region of the world. we have the capability to continue to push that and that is the guidance we are getting in our national security and military strategy, partnering and partnerships are critical to our own national security. intelligence must be ready for the new realities.
the second megatrend i want to speak to briefly have to do with a connected populace. it is really important we understand this. the young people of today, they are growing up in a different world. when i say young, it is the millennials in this world where they do not wear watches. they tell time by a cell phone. i could go on and on describing how regions of the world have moved from no pair copper wire, which, unless you are used to an old dial-up phone, you do not even know what i'm talking about, to 4g and five g telecommunications networks around the world. the african continent has 47% of the global total communications market. they never really had the two- pair copper wire that was built into the infrastructure of this
country years ago at the turn of the last century in order to build a telephone system. communications and the interconnectedness we have is really changing the face of the planet. by 2017, only a couple of years away, half of the world's population will be connected to the internet. you add in the ubiquitous use of cell phones around the world and you have a global populace that is connected in ways unimaginable 100 years ago probably to a degree 25 years ago. our new intelligence challenges is finding the right needle in a skyscraper haystack of needles. i will say that again because it is important. it is the challenge we face. our new intelligence challenge is finding the right needle in a skyscraper size haystack of needles because the volume of information we are able to absorb in our system today has no meaning unless we ruthlessly prioritize what it is we are trying to discover. knowledge is what we are trying to discover. finally, dia is training our analysts on cutting edge tactics and procedures to shrink the
haystack to better support policymakers and war fighters. so what is the so what? i think this is an important aspect and a dynamic that stresses the population growth we have seen over the last 100 years. i believe we do not yet know what having a worldwide network population means to national security and global stability. obviously, we are thinking about it. our challenge is to remain ahead of the rapidly shifting and next financially rising technology curve. unprecedented connectivity linking the world together creates both opportunities and challenges. in terms of opportunities, a vast array of accessible information. that is an opportunity out there we have to take advantage of. the possibility to forge new partnerships with nontraditional
partners. and all the potential that global communications can bring. these opportunities are in the field of economic development, improved education, enabling new agricultural techniques, or developing new energy resources. the challenge is our a mess. -- the challenges are immense. the free flow of ideas that test societies not yet ready to respond, or those wild card or network threats such as the nontraditional threats posed by non-nationstates cyber actors. these types of threats continue to test us on a daily basis. i think the world of cyber and everything out there in the media today for the generation of young people involved in getting an education today, and where you may be, as i look at my career backwards 33 years and i look forward to the kinds of things i have experienced, what one can imagine, what i can imagine standing here today, projecting myself maybe 30 years ahead and trying to think of all of the changes i have seen and
many of the others in this room that have been around a little bit, the kinds of dynamics we have seen change. in the information world in just the last five or six years, facebook only came onto the scene in 2005. today, over half a billion people are connected via twitter. these are just some of the challenges that we are facing in what i believe is the defense intelligence and intelligence in general has to remain ahead of the curve. confronting tomorrow's challenges, just as we reflect back on the past challenges we faced as we lead into a world war ii, and the kinds of information coming in, and the lack of technology at the time that created the inefficiency that caused some of the harm that occurred, these megatrends
are really creating new paradigms every single day. intelligence has to be adaptive, or we will be caught by surprise again. the mega city development is far outpacing nationstates ability to provide basic resources and governance. where there are nationstates that have essentially good institutions, good governance, and some aspect of rule of law, not necessarily rule of law that we would attest to, but they have some control of their societies, they are in relatively ok shape. the remainder of the world, most of it, is not. we have large parts of the planet in these less than governed areas or regions that do not have the institutions and strength of our education system and financial systems, and definitely, what i believe, one of our national security advantages, our rule of law in the country.
those are important aspects we need to keep in mind as we think about the challenges we are likely to face in the future. these are all creating hotbeds of economic stagnation and political instability and what i have described as these less than governed regions of the world. demographic challenges, things bulges, gender imbalance, and aging populations, have the potential to spark widespread unrest in some of these regions. i think we see some of that in different parts of the african continent and parts of the middle east. what are the implications for national security? defense intelligence and the enterprise that dia is responsible for, we are rethinking how we approach this threat. we are facing a very complex array of threats and adversaries. our changing operational environment demands new approaches, new geographic areas
of emphasis. north-south dynamic. if you picked up on the population slide, in the past, we were in east-west world. it was the east and the former soviet union over the last 50 or 60 years. now, this shift over the next 50 years, it really started back around 1990 and certainly into the last decade. the world is shifting to this north-south dynamic where the populations and the centers i have been talking about, these megatrends particularly, are more in the southern hemisphere of the world. the eastern and western parts of the world are typically europe, the united states, russia, china, and then when you begin to look at some of the more challenged parts of the world, it is really in the southern hemisphere of the world. that is where we are seeing a lot of these challenges today. that is why we see ourselves being drawn into places that are relatively new locations where we are having to play military forces in our intelligence
system is being challenged to understand these new threats. as i said, our changing operational environment demands new approaches. urban terrain will continue to be the dominant were fighting environment, bringing with it a unique set of challenges. those challenges, i believe, deal with precision. in the days of desert, mountain, or jungle warfare, you could be less precise in terms of the application of military power. in the day and age of urban warfare, and we see this in the last decade operating in places like baghdad, kabul, these were urban areas. as we see more of the population moving to an urbanization effect, the precision of our
capability will be key. the other way i describe it is understanding. understanding should be a principal of war like economy of force or mass. one of the lessons learned from the last decade of war, our failure to understand the operation environment led to a mismatch of resources and capabilities apply to that environment. as we move into a different operational environment, and this is one that is emerging, and we have to have a better understanding, and we will have to be very precise applying that instrument. it is everything we do. in terms of taking it back to
dia, and a new model for defense intelligence, the dia must find deficiencies and need a new threat environment at the same time. when the rate of change on the outside of an organization is greater than on the inside, they will become less relevant. we do not want to become less relevant. we cannot afford it. we are advocating a new model for defense intelligence to keep pace for the rapidly changing global environment. the core of this model is fusion and integration. it leverages innovative strategies to overcome fiscal restraints. what is this integrated intelligence center construct? dia is implementing integrated centers, regional and functional centers to synchronize capabilities and eliminate redundancies throughout our entire enterprise.
the integration of intelligence operations and collection with our defense all source analysts and then combining these capabilities with collection management, targeting, science and technology, bring to bear significant capability and talent to forwarn impending conflict -- all these types of skills and capabilities, and others, they all brought underneath the construct of a center concept. the integrated intelligence center construct, uniquely tied into our war fighting combat in and commands, part of the defense intelligence enterprise, provides full spectrum intelligence, synchronizing capabilities and eliminating redundancies. i will not stand here until you tell you we will eliminate every redundancy, but i will tell you, it is one of the areas we have to try to work toward. understanding who is doing what to whom. as a longtime intelligence
officer, you meet the demands of your customer. your customer is a commander. if your customer is the secretary of defense for the present, you answer that question. somebody else answers it for their boss, so be it. if somebody wants a call that redundant, so be it. that is the world we live in in dealing with the here and now and the threats we face today and to keep us out of conflict, as the doctor highlighted, we want to stay in a military vernacular. fusion and integration will permeate everything we do. transparency within our defense intelligence enterprise must become the norm. there are really three priorities or components should -- and i talked a little bit about them in the pamphlet we handed out. they have to do with operations analysis and training. fusing analysis and collection, modernizing analytic methods and
tools, being innovative to maximize return on investment, we absolutely have to do that in everything we do. as much money as we spent over the last decade to build capabilities, in many cases, money was spent in stovepipe ways, so now we look at the best tools we have. we want to bring those to bear. we do not want to throw out everything we've just learned to do. we want to take the good forward with us. a new model for defense intelligence requires elevating our capabilities in innovative ways. one of the small steps we have taken is created an office of innovation and we have competition for small and large businesses in an open forum now on our websites. that is basically called the innovation gateway. it will actually kick in in early january. we just opened up -- we put our requirements out there. in the open world. we put them out there and say, here is what we are looking for and it allows open competition.
it reduces the turn for our investment from years to under really a couple of months. significantly has changed the way we are able to adapt with technology. we must also thicken the edge, supporting -- the edge being the field, what is out there on the footprint of our furthest server -- the furthest horizon that we have out there. we also must support a greater human intelligence presence forward. working with our national partners, and then fusing that through analysis and collection, making sure it is all done in a very prioritized and effective and smart way. we must reshape defense analysis as well, exploiting the unprecedented amount of data available to us with new tools, technologies, and databases that are definitely different just because of the technology we have today. tools i used in both iraq and
afghanistan, only a few years ago, are outdated. we have new technology that has now given us even better insight in being able to tag data to sift through the sand to speak to find the golden nugget. we must champion a new training and education model. we have to invest in training and education. we have to maximize the agility across our entire enterprise. that enterprise is the defensive intelligence agency headquarters and our national capital region footprint, which is significant, all of the joint intelligence operations centers and commands and all of the service intelligence centers.
the army, the marine corps, intelligence service agency, it belongs to the air force right over here. the parkway, that belongs to the navy. it is all part of our enterprise. we have to ensure we are invest in them and basically make the right investments in these highly talented intelligence officers we have. for us, it is a significant investment. we do not want to leave a decade of war with all the six periods we have and then stop investing, particularly in the young workforce that we have, the what we call below 40 workforce we have. prior to 9/11, we were generally about close to 70% from the age of 40 over the last decade, we have shifted not completely around, but more than 50% are under the age of 40. over 6000 of our civilians have deployed. over 6000 have deployed in the last decade to iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere in support of operation enduring freedom. we have to provide the best technology available and counter
what appears to be never ending threats to our way of life and that drives our workforce every day. if we are not to have another pearl harbor or 9/11, we must move toward a far greater integrated intelligence community focus on one thing, protecting our nation. with that, i would just finish it is a quote and i would say, we cannot afford another commission or committee such as the joint committee on the investigation of the pearl harbor attack in 1946 and they stated "had we greater imagination and a keener awareness of the significance of the intelligence that existed, it is proper to suggest that someone should include pearl harbor was a likely point of japanese attack." we cannot afford to lack that imagination in what we are dealing with today.
with that, john, and the staff of iwp, i want to say thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to present some thoughts on the direction we are taking over in dia. i look forward to questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. it seems as we look back in time, we sometimes did not have an understanding not only of our adversaries but also our teammates that came from a different culture. do you think this explosion of media connections will help us bridge that so we can better understand what makes our friends and adversaries tick?
>> this is the $64,000 question, and there are a lot of them. that is one of them. how do you know the view of media? we want to ensure it is believable and reliable and relevant. we have to come to grips with this medium that has an enormous amount of media in it. the number of videos uploaded and videos that are being presented from the battlefield of syria as an example. media that is presenting activity in a tehrir square, presenting activity in a
benghazi situation or in libya. we have to look at that. we will have to develop -- it is like the old attack and defend manuals i grew up in, grew up with teaching in the 1980's, where we had a laundry list of indicators of an attack, the indicators of a defense. there are new sets of indicators now that are actually coming at us far faster because of the media out there. we will have to develop what these new indicators are for warning. i will tell you, strategic warning and tactical warning can be a matter of hours in some cases, because of the speed. it is what people describe as the velocity of the information environment we face. so, are there trusted sources out there? are there better media that are
more reliable in the kinds of reporting they do? at the same time, you are bombarded by the information. it gets back to -- when i was a young officer, my commanders would turn to me and say, tell me where the enemy is. that is not good guidance. what is it -- i have a responsibility to understand what it is we're trying to do, and i think the give-and-take these days, and i think the smart commanders i know, the top brigade on up, they have more of a dialogue these days with their intelligence professionals, particularly analysts. a lot of young analysts have been very engaging with brigade commanders, colonels, generals, on up to joint task force commanders. it has to be a give-and-take. what you're trying to pull out, sometimes, the commander does not know. sometimes, the secretary of defense, the president, they are
not sure what it is they need. you have to enable this dialogue to pull out and push the kind of information that is available, you have to get to be more precise in the answers we are providing. the more precision we can have in our priority intelligence requirements, the more precise we can be in directing a vast capability we have against the right target. >> can i ask the questioners to identify themselves? i want to introduce the admiral dave rogers who asked the first question. >> the institute of world politics. our ability to address the north south challenges predicated on american leadership and the unity of the western alliance. you have not addressed too much the challenges to the western
alliance eminating from russia and china. which are not in the south. would you mind commenting? >> i will comment a little bit. some of these are clearly in a policy bin. i want to make sure what i do is stay in where i think the intelligence challenges lie. i would just say as we go forward, the kinds of challenges that we, the united states, are going to face, are very similar to what the chinese are facing, and the russians are facing, sort of the normal, the big nationstates. sort of the big players on the world stage. i would bring into that, even, the european union of nations, and the challenges really come
down to three things. they all have to do with access, access to food, access to water, and access to energy. i think those three things, those three capabilities, those three items, for this world that is growing, and, as we move to be more of an urbanized society, a global society, we take it for granted. you look around in our country and take it for granted when you turn on a water faucet and a light and you have all of that. in some of these places where they do not have that kind of structure, those kinds of visitations that ensure you have power and electric, ensure you have clean water -- those types
of nations will have to face together those things. i believe we need to face them as a coherent group of leaders instead of trying to challenge each other. we have to contribute to the greater good. any leader would say that is right. intelligence supports that in a lot of ways. trying to understand where those challenges are where those types of resources are. what are the kinds of challenges we are likely to face if we have to go get those resources in some cases or protect those resources around the world? not for the united states were or for russia or china, but for the world to be able to apply those to a global landscape that is rapidly changing. let me go way to the back to the young lady. >> i am a masters candidate here
at the us to for world politics. you spoke about staying relevant. with policymakers focusing on the short-term threats here and now, are there any resources going to midterm and long-term threats? if a whole bunch of resources are not come out of the dia plan for long-term national security? >> that is a great question. i get that a lot especially in the field. there are forces in the field, those are joint task forces. our special operations forces. underneath combatant commands. they tend to live in the short term because they are dealing with the operational environment as it is and reality as it is today. people tend to look back and say if we will do that, you also do six months or a year and out.
which we do. we work very closely with our national intelligence system, both the national capabilities and organizations like the cia, and definitely with the office of director of national intelligence through national intelligence framework. those assessments are done fairly routinely, and they are done in documents called national intelligence assessments. there are other national assessments done on things like water and weapons of mass destruction and developing economies. there are long-term projects and assessments that are done. they are frankly done by both defense, because we will look at defense issues long-term for
defense investment by some of the regional partners around the world. how much are they investing over the next five or 10 years? same thing back on our side. we will do that kind of assessing. it is example of something we would do. we would participate, certainly, in other assessments taken place but definitely have a direct impact on the fence. a good question, but it gets back to what i said, if something happens in yemen, or something happens in iraq, and the secretary of defense or an assistant secretary, because we work with all kinds of customers, says, what just happened? i need to know because i'm getting ready to go into the interagency process over here on capitol hill, and i need some answers, that is a here and now answer, and they will not go to get that answer. they turned to us. we have to also maintain a very
current intelligence capability. we do that. the center construct actually gives us enormous flexibility to do that. we also do that through the joint staff. the joint staff j2 is also a component of really staying in the here and now on behalf of the chairman of joint chiefs. that is -- if no one has ever worked on the joint staff or those who have any aspirations, the joint staff, the way i used to joke about it, the best thing i like about it is my parking spot. the job itself is just ruthless. when i look back at assignments, that was probably one of the best i ever had because it is so alive, and you are really at the top of the game in terms of intelligence support to war fighters. a great question. yes, ma'am. >> thank you for the presentation.
i am the executive director of foreign aid through education. specifically, given the reduced u.s. government fiscal resources, how do you see it correlating to be able to take the reduced resources and start to address the velocity -- velocity of information at the same time the volumes of the velocity of the information, to be able to come out with timely analysis to be able to answer the questions that need to be answered. >> i will give you my personal day. life in the day of flynn.
you know, we have an intelligence mission, and, dia is a big business. it is a global corporation. probably midsized in terms of scale and budget and things like that. so i have a responsibility to ensure folks doing the intelligence transmission have the resources they need to do their intelligence mission. i say that a bit tongue-in-cheek because resources are finite and prioritized and not everything not everybody will get what they want. i have to prioritize the intelligence mission. it is in a collective sense as we are being driven from the white house to the secretary, undersecretary and assistant secretary level, the national intelligence director on down through our combatant command. everything dries how we prioritize. it starts with the president. the president sets very clear priorities for the intelligence system.
given that, how do we then shape the business environment and the business side of what we're doing? i like to think of agility and flexibility and speed, relevancy, as terms to shape an organization. as i highlighted three priorities that we are involved in, we are prioritizing operations, which is really our collection capabilities, counter and human intelligence. we are prioritizing our analytic capablities because at the end of the day, we provide knowledge to support decision-making. that is kind of what we do. we have to modernize analysis and defense analysis because, exactly what you said, elaine, with the volume and velocity of information, we cannot stick to the ways we used to have in the past. very conventional and traditional training and in some cases, even tools that we have. we have to change those. they are business decisions. i will tell you for us, we have
made a couple of big ones. we have made big decisions in our information technology. we have made big decisions in our modernizing analysis. we are going to make other investment decisions in the world of science and technology because that is a big component of what we do. we are a huge lab and think tank rolled into one. we have access to a wide range of capabilities from darpa, the research organization. we have to make smart business decisions that take the dollars that we are given and use them as wisely as we can and ensure we are prioritizing exactly what we are being driven to prioritize by our leadership. i believe that has been very
clear, but the challenge that we face is that, as clear as that can be, something else will happen around the world that suddenly takes you by surprise. when we think back to pearl harbor, or 9/11, was it an existential threat to the country? the underlying, underpinnings of live those occurred could be x existential. nazism is an example. the national leadership asked to decisions about how far we go when we are in fact surprised, and who are the people, the individuals, making those decisions that do surprise us. that is really, for those in -- who get paid the big bucks to make tough decisions, with -- we have the responsibility to give the best intelligence we can. in the environment we are in
today, we have to ruthlessly prioritize our resources to be able to accomplish that mission. >> general, thank you for your service and for your commitment to the national defense. it's advent, so it is a time of hope. outside the beltway, there are a lot of concerns about how well the various parts of the u.s. government are doing and coping with the challenges we face. in that regard, and referring back to your mention of critical thinking, tradecraft, and the need to understand, i would like to ask you questions. the first is you did not mention the challenge of islam. i would like it if you could clarify please how you came to train your analysts to use critical thinking about islam when it appears that the defense department or the pentagon is afraid to have people who take a dimwit-eyed view of how muslims
are about to left or your staff. or when it seems inside the beltway, it is hard to tell whether people consider what has -- what nidal hassan did was workplace violence or terror. how do you cope with trying to understand and anticipate how some people may use some parts of islam, the occur on, to justify terrorist acts? number two, our society faces a lot of strains. how do you foresee quarantining or preventing the next bradley manning? >> those are good questions. [laughter] let me start with the second one. i think that is relatively, you know, a short answer.
i do not think we can stop an insider threat, a determined, cunning, agile, savvy individual who works to get inside of our system so to speak. you cannot close all the locks and gates and doors. there will always be that threat. we have to put disciplined processes in place. many times, when you look at what has happened, manning or were the right things in place? the answer generally is yes. were people doing the right
things? maybe not. our system administrators, were they following the rules? all these kinds of procedures and policies, we do not need more of that, necessarily. this would create new ones. but we need to be able to -- to do is have discipline. our counterintelligence efforts are significant, as they should be. we should have an awareness of the counterintelligence and the kind of intelligence threat posed against us because it is real. i think we will learn a lot of lessons from that. we continue to learn those. i will -- i will not stand here and tell you we will never stop that kind of threat. especially from somebody who is determined. on the first question, i think,
it comes down to -- what is the environment we are facing? we come to grips and face the reality of what it is that is happening within a social structure, to talk about islamism, or christianity or judaism or whatever it is, i have been schooled on this by friends who are of the islamic faith, when you talk about fundamentalists or extremists, there are extremists in every segment of society. someone i define as willing to put themselves and their lives and children and others at risk for some extreme believe they
have. the typical suicide bomber, if you do not see it in the news today, it is in the news today in yemen and in iraq in the last 24 hours. more bombs, off, killing large swaths of people out there doing their business for the day, trying to make a living. those are extremist elements inside our society. those elements are part of, i would argue, most elements of our society. it does not make any difference what their religious background is. we have to understand that and we have to understand what these cultures that believe in these and have these believes, that we do not necessarily -- you know, as a catholic, do i even understand it at all? i have tried. when i deal with somebody who is a fundamentalist, somebody who has a strong believe in their
religion, i have a strong belief in my religion. it does not mean i will go to an extreme and do something violent. that is what we have to deal with. these elements, in whatever walk of life it is, that will turn to violence. and challenge, not only societies that cannot take care of themselves, but also us and our way of life. i think that is a difficult challenge we are facing. as we look around the world, and we see societies and the societal underpinnings of what i would describe in some regions of the world, where there is a sense of hopelessness, that is where we have to understand that and decide whether we will do anything about it or not. in some cases we can and in some we cannot, but we would like to do is he able to help other nations in other regions of the world, certainly, to be able to help themselves. that is what a global leader should do. that is what we try to do all the time. as i see the military and what
the military has been involved in over the years, that is what we have tried to do. it does not make a difference what their background is. other questions? let me go in the back. yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] thank you for your talk, general. the revelations made by edward snowden as far as the nsa is concerned, have those affected your agency posses ability to function as usual prior to the revelations? >> good question. that is an extraordinary capability, a national capability for our country buses and ability. the workforce, men and women up there, are some of the most talented people we have in the intelligence community today.
they are challenged today because of this just incredible outpouring of attention that they do not, frankly, they do not deserve it. the workforce up there does not deserve it. and all the while, all the stuff going on in the news today, they are out there today, 24/7, and i would not just say up there, in fort mead, but that is a global workforce out there on the battlefield in afghanistan, and in many other parts of the world that are working 24/7. to answer your question, has it affected us? absolutely. is what the individual did a tragedy? absolutely.
it is being dealt with in the right channels. at this stage, we have to look at all of the ways we can mitigate the impacts of what some of those effects are, whether it is a reduction of reporting or access to information, and we're working through all that. the maturity of your intelligence community is a high level of maturity. it is a daily conversation to make sure that we mitigate any impact because we still have a national security mission that we have to adhere to. a good question. let me go right here. this will be the last question. >> i am retired from the state department. do you have -- given the issue raised to train on cultural issues, what you brought up about the younger workforce,
at dia, what was brought up here with the need for your defense, to quickly and adequately bring back information to you, to have the necessary bandwidth in their communications, is there any light at the end of the tunnel of the budgetary process? is there anybody in congress listening? >> how do i take the fifth, here? [laughter] you know, i mean, i do not want to disparage anybody. we are facing -- i have been doing this for 33 years. i trust my judgment and my instinct. what i believe is we are in an incredibly difficult time but we are not a time where we are about to collapse.
i do not believe that for a second. we have incredible strategic advantages in many areas. for example -- rule of law. no country in the world has the rule of law we have. it is unprecedented. the intelligence system we have is a strategic advantage because of its capability. when it is precisely focused, we can do just about anything. we are challenged because of the magnitude or the number of events around the world today, but we are still doing a pretty good job of keeping things at bay. maybe it is a bit selfish, but our defense capability, military capability. it is a national strategic advantage. our military, despite what you hear about all of the challenges the army and navy and air force, those are true. we are still the best in the world. the most capable.
that provides this country enormous advantage. when other countries look at us and look at the united states, we need to remind ourselves to be exactly what is in our dna, which is to be humble about our strategic advantage as a world power and as a global leader, and not be seen as, we are better than you. we have to be seen as a global leader around the world. i know we are because of the conversations i have with others. i say all of that because i think it is a dialogue. not just a dialogue one way, but a dialogue from the dia to the defense department, from congress back to daa, and we and we have a great conversation going on all the time. we have to make decisions about capabilities. it is not a fair world. you will not end up with what you want sometimes.
you will end up with what you need. i believe that is the right thing to do. these days, and especially as we go over the next couple of years, that trend typically happens as we come out of global conflicts. world war i, wwii, korea, vietnam, the end of the cold war, desert shield and desert storm, and we had the peace dividend. then we go in to the balkans and now 9/11, and here we are again. we are still in war but are transitioning out of afghanistan. i just finished with what john said up front. what we have to be able to do is help our decision-makers make the best decisions they can with the best information we can provide them to stay out of conflict and stay in this precrisis or sort of a peaceful world. the world is generally not bad.
it is not the reality, but what we do not want to do is move ourselves to where we reduce our leaders' options, increase the cost to our nations purse or wallet, and we seriously increase the risk to our country. that, to me, is what we want to avoid. with that, i want to say again, thanks, john, for inviting me. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
>> house and senate negotiators reach an agreement on an $85 billion budget to fund the government passed a january 15. the bill will prevent another federal shutdown but does not extend expiring unemployment benefits. paul ryan and the senate budget committee chair patty murray for a joint announcement the agreement. this is 15 minutes. >> good evening. i am happy to report that senator murray and i have reached an agreement. we've been talking all year. and this week that hard work of the two of us sitting down and talking to each other all year has paid off.
first, it started because we passed budgets. and senator murray deserves credit for passing a budget through the senate. that got the ball rolling so that the two of us started talking. and the reason we're here tonight is to explain what we've agreed to. this bill reduces the deficit by $23 billion. and it does not raise taxes. and it cuts spending in a smarter way. from the outset, we knew that if we forced each other to compromise a core principle he would get nowhere. that is why we decided to focus on where the common ground is. so that's what we've done. that means to me a budget agreement that reduces the deficit without raising taxes and replaces some of the arbitrary, across-the-board spending cuts with smarter, permanent reforms that pay for this relief. the house budget reflects our ultimate goals it. balanced the budget within 10 years, it pays off the debt, but i realize that that is not going it pass in this divided government. i see this as agreement as a step in the right direction. in divided government you don't always get what you want. that said, we still can make
progress toward our goals. i see this agreement as that kind of progress. as a step in the right direction. and so the arbitrary cuts, we make smart, targeted reforms. we eliminate waste. we stop sending checks to criminals. we cut corporate welfare. we reform some mandatory programs. and we start to make real reforms of these auto pilot programs that were drivers of our debt in the first place. i think this agreement is a clear improvement on the status quo. this agreement makes sure that we don't have a government shutdown scenario in january, it makes sure that we don't have another government shutdown scenario in october. this makes sure that we don't lurch from crisis to crisis. it also allows congress to finally exercise the power of the purse. the constitution says that the legislative branch should exercise the power of the purse. we want to reclaim that, instead of having all of these continuing resolutions. this also shows that we can work together, to get our government
functioning at its very basic levels. that we think is a step in the right direction. that we think gives us some confidence. that brings some normalcy back to our government. i want to take a moment to thank senator murray. she's a tough and honest negotiator. she's fought hard for her principles every step of the way and i want to commend her for her hard work. all of the summary documents in the legislation will be placed upon our budget websites by the end of the night. with that i'd like to offer senator murray. >> thank you. well, for far too long here in washington, d.c., compromise has been considered a dirty word, especially when it comes to the federal
budget. over the past few years we have lurched from crisis to crisis and from one cliff to the next. with when one countdown clock stopped, it wasn't long before the next one got started. that uncertainty was devastating to our fragile economic recovery. the constant crisis cost us billions of dollars in lost growth and jobs and the continued across-the-board cuts
from sequestration were forcing our families and communities to pay the price. so i am very proud to stand here today with chairman ryan to announce we have broken through the partisanship and the gridlock and reached a bipartisan budget compromise that will prevent a government shutdown in january. our deal puts jobs and economic growth first by rolling back sequestration's harmful cuts to education and medical research and infrastructure investments and defense for the next two years. i know there are some people who thought these cuts should continue, but i'm glad that we increased these key domestic investments and that we averted the next round of scheduled cuts to military programs, bases and defense jobs in our country. this deal builds on the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction we have done since 2011 and continues the precedent that we set in the fiscal cliff deal
that sequestration shouldn't be replaced with spending cuts alone. this bipartisan deal will help millions of americans who are wondering if they were going to keep paying the price for d.c. dysfunction. from the workers at our military bases and construction projects who were furloughed or laid off, to the kids who lost their slots in head start programs, to the seniors wondering if they were going to have meals on wheels, families who were praying for halted medical research programs to get back to work on a cure and so much more. the budget process can now stop lurching from crisis to crisis. by setting bipartisan spending levels for the next two years, this deal allows congressional committees to proceed under regular order and gives government agencies and the companies that do business with them the certainty they need to hire workers and make investments. this isn't the plan i would have written on my own. i'm pretty sure that chairman ryan wouldn't have written it on his own. and there are obviously differences when it comes to our budget values and priorities.
i was disappointed we weren't able to close a single corporate tax loophole. i know many republicans hoped this would be the opportunity to make changes to medicare and social security they've advocated for. but congressman ryan has set aside our differences. we've made some compromises and we've worked together to get something done. this deal doesn't solve every issue in front of congress, we made a conscious decision, as chairman ryan said, in the few short weeks we've had, to focus on where we can agree and not get bogged down on the larger issues that, while important, are not going to get solved right now. we need to acknowledge that our nation has serious long-term fiscal and economic challenges. this deal doesn't address. and our budget process has been broken. many people believe that congress is broken. we have spent years scrambling to fix artificial crises while our debt piles up and the economic foundation middle class
families have depended on for generations continues to crumble. we have budget deficits that have improved but they have not disappeared and we have deficits in education and innovation and infrastructure that continue to widen. we know we need comprehensive tax reform. we need comprehensive immigration reform. there's a lot more for congress to do. this doesn't solve all of our problems but i think it is an important step in helping to heal some of the wounds here in congress. to rebuild some trust and show that we can do something without a crisis right around the corner. and demonstrate the value in making our government work for the people we represent. so when all this is done, i am very proud to stand with chairman or anyone else who wants to work on this bipartisan foundation to continue addressing our nation's challenges. nothing is easy here but i know the american people expect nothing less. i want to take a minute to especially thank chairman ryan.
he and i do have some major differences. we cheer for a different football team. clearly. we catch different fish. we have some differences on policy. but we agree that our country needs some certainty and they need to show that we can work together. and i've been very proud to work with him. i also want to thank congressman van hollen who has worked very hard to help make sure this deal reflects the values that he cares a lot about and all of our budget conference committee, everyone who has been involved in the committee has been very hard, working with us to get to this deal. so i'm hopeful that we can get this bipartisan bill through the house and then through the senate and get home in time for the holidays that i think everybody deserves this year. >> so, presumably you're going to go through the house republican conference and pitch this. i talked to a couple senior house members who -- [inaudible] what do you say to folks who are
skeptical, who realize this is not one of your budgets, that this is an agreement that compromises and that there are going to be conservatives who say, no this isn't for me? >> i think this is a step in the right direction. what am i getting out of this? i'm getting more deficit reduction. so the deficit will go down more by passing this than if we did nothing. that's point number one. point number two, there are no tax increases here. point number three, we're finally starting to deal with auto pilot spending. that mandatory spending that has not been addressed by congress for years. look this isn't easy. this is the first divided government budget agreement since 1986. the reason we haven't done a budget agreement is because it's not easy to do. we know we're not going to get everything we want and she's not going to get everything she wants. >> [inaudible] why would house conservatives vote against it? >> i think conservatives should vote for it. i think we'll have a healthy
vote in the house republican caucus. i think we'll pass this in the house. we'll go first, given our schedules. we will post this on our website today, this evening. and we intend to bring it to the house floor later on this week. i have every reason to expect great support from our caucus. because we are keeping our principles. the key here is, nobody had to sacrifice their core principles. our principles are don't raise taxes, reduce the deficit. we also have a lot of concerned members about defense. the next hit from this sequester was going to hit solely on the military. starting in january. a lot of our members were concerned about that. so what we are doing here is providing for some sequester relief for 2014 and for 2015. and we're paying for that with more permanent reforms on the auto pilot side of the spending ledger in excess of the sequester relief results in any of deficit reduction. that to me is a good deal. >> [inaudible] it looks as if this represents an agreement between the two of you versus an agreement that you can get
through both chambers. how much vetting you have done? >> i can tell that you i've been in close contact with my leadership and a number of members as we've worked through this issue. i expect that chairman ryan and my job will be the same as we leave here tonight. which is to talk to everybody about our deal and to work to get the vote. i'm confident that we won't have 100% of the senate or 100% of the house. this is a bipartisan deal. we have both had to move to get to where we are today. but i think what the american people ought to know is that this congress can work, that people can come up together from very different corners and find common ground and bring some certainty back to our jobs and our economy. that is what we have continually focused on. >> we've done this in consultation with our leadership team which is in support of this. i've consulted with every committee chairman whose jurisdiction is involved in this, because this spans as you can imagine, a lot of different
committee chairmen. this has been a process where in the house we have consulted with numerous colleagues to get their ideas, to get their input, their feedback and support and that's why i'm very confident about where we stand in the house. >> how much sequester relief is there? >> $63 billion. $85 billion in mandatory savings, $63 billion in sequester relief. that results in about $22.5 billion in deficit reduction. >> $45 billion for the first year and the rest in the second year. >> right. $1.012 trillion through 2014 and $1.014 trillion through f.y. 2015. to chad's earlier question, why would a republican support that? the budget that i passed last session with near unanimity in the house, with most house republicans voting for it, was
fighting for $1.019 trillion. so the budget number that we've fought for in the last session won't be hit until the year 2017 under this agreement. this is why i think house republicans should be supporting this. >> [inaudible] >> in this, you will all have the details of this agreement shortly. one of the most difficult challenges we faced was the issue of federal employees and military. and congressman ryan and both have worked on this a lot. he is a tough negotiator, in case any of you want to know. and it started out very high, at $20 billion. it is down to $6 billion for federal employees and $6 billion for military and we will have the details of those proposals out to you very shortly. >> the reason those numbers equalize is because we think it's only fair that hardworking taxpayers who pay for the benefits that our federal
employees receive be treated fairly as well. we also think it's important that military families as well as nonmilitary families are treated equally and fairly. so what we're asking here is that the people who work for the federal government, and we thank them for their work, they're hardworking and dedicated people that we respect, but we think it's only right and fair that they pay something more toward their pensions just like the hardworking taxpayer that pays for those pensions in the first place. >> i want to add one other part to that. if chairman ryan and i did not reach an agreement, we'd be at sequester level very shortly and many of these same people would be facing furloughs, layoffs and uncertainty. we have brought certainty back to all those people. >> is there also an understanding that you'll have a separate vote on -- [inaudible] >> that's not part of this agreement. >> not part of this agreement. the leaders are -- that's -- they're talking about that. >> there's a lot of uncertainty
in the markets. due to the last government shutdown. what do you think the message is out there to markets and to the business community as a whole? not just for the congress in january but going through the rest of the year? >> well, look, all along i thought it was very important that we do what we can to show that this divided government can work. and by doing this, we are show showing that this divided government can work in its basic functioning levels which is paying the bills. both republicans and democrats think it's important that congress retains the power of the purse and that we set priorities on spending. that's, after all, what the constitution says we should do and that's what we were elected to do and we're doing this agreement in large part because what this will do is avoid those government shutdowns. you see, because we're doing a two-year agreement here we avoid a possible shutdown in january and october.
we think that provides certainty and stability not just to the markets but to the country, to people who deal with this federal government, but more importantly, it gives power back to congress to set priorities in spending, instead of giving basically a blank check of discretion to the executive branch of government. >> but the debt ceiling is not dealt with as i understand, right? >> that's another press conversation subject. >> you have really alleviated that uncertainty in the economy? >> i think alleviating government shutdowns does alleviate some of the uncertainty that's been plaguing this country and capitol. >> you've been a darling of the right. there are a number of rightwing groups who have come out against this plan. are you prepared to take all that incoming fire? >> look, as a conservative, i deal with the situation as it exists. i deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way things i want them to be. i've passed three budgets in a
row that reflect my priorities and my principles and everything i want to accomplish. we're in divided government. i realize i'm not going to get. that so i'm not going to go a mile in the direction i wanted to go to, but i'll take a few steps. this agreement takes us in the right direction. for the very reasons i laid out before. this says, let's cut spending in a smarter way, some permanent spending cuts to pay for some temporary sequester relief, to result in net deficit reduction without raising taxes. that's fiscal responsibility and conservatism and it adds greater stability to the situation. it prevents government shutdowns which we don't think is in anyone's interest. that to me is the right thing to do and it's a conservative looking at a situation the way it is, making it better. >> [inaudible]
at 8:30, senator ron johnson. follman of5, mark "mother jones" announced a leaders two-year budget deal that will keep federal agencies up and running. good morning, everyone on this wednesday, december 11, 2013. paul ryan and patty murphy said that this deal means that the government stops lurching from one crisis to the next. what do you think this morning?