With that, lets bookmark as, senator dan coats who doesnt need much of an introduction. Obviously somebody you all know, not just because of his role in the senate and Appropriations Committee and involvement with issues of foreign aid they are, but also in his previous 10 tarnation as u. S. Ambassador to germany during the first half of the last decade in which there were a few interesting matters like iraq and so forth. Senator coats obviously if youre interested in transatlantic relationships as a result of that experience is hes had. And his concerns to budgetary pressures and other pressures facing the United States and its role. Senator, thanks a lot. I know its not easy for you to get here and thats not either. I guess that they too began and a general way asking you, what is the concern . Whats worrying you about the possible interaction between limited resources here, pressure to cut the budget and what that might do in terms of limiting u. S. Role abroad . The consequences of a diminishing pool of Resources Available and all the fiscal pressures on the congress now in terms of the decisions they make and how to allocate on and the prospects for the future not looking on that. Combined with i think it less and less engagement, knowledge of and participation by members of congress and global affairs, whether it is National Security, military related or whether its Foreign Policy aide related for diplomacy and our presence throughout the world. If you let back look back to congress 20, 25 years ago, is essentially made up of people who have the relationship to world war ii and its aftermath in terms of the u. S. Global engagement. The Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of japan in americas prisons. In the relationship also in the lessons and threat posed by the cold war. And those were very defining, major umbrella issues that produced great statesman. Henry jackson and others on a bipartisan bill and waters edge, americas presence and engagement around the world. Two superpowers, the umbrella that was held over the world stifled the regional and local factions and tensions that erupted after the end of the cold war. That all had a Significant Impact on the American People and commitment and support for the u. S. To be at bobo be globally engaged. It is the possibility of a five alarm fire and everybodys been to try to keep them from getting out of control. With the fall of the wall in the aftermath, there was the defining event and that was iraqs incursion into kuwait. We saw the global president s put together by jim baker and george h. W. Bush nsx 70 hageman of the worlds nations. This subset can do that, we have seen a completely different scene and that is what i would describe as the 20 armors and three libraries and theyve got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. And oliver sudden, you have people who dont have a lot of people in congress who dont have the previous reference has basically come to the conclusion that the world is change and they really cant afford, nor do we have the public support for global engagement. When you go back home intact to people back home, it literally is like saying you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and ill get a haircut or not solve the problem. The amount of foreign aid in person is shrinking to the point where its relatively insignificant compared to the whole. Yet the will to support that Going Forward into the event step out and say well, we are to be more engaged here or we can do more here or these are the functions that are working, its hard to get public support for that. Its hard to get congressional support. The yoshio what are the consequences of a diminishing public support pretty well articulated by the president , both in its campaign in postcampaign announcements. Were not going to be everywhere in fact, were going to retract. The support of the American People basically saying why we bear . So whether its maintaining forces are presence in germany to be a staging point for all thats happening in the middle east, whether its engaged in syria are not engaging in theory a relating from behind on libya, the pacific have it, you know, its more like i had faith. How do we begin to have the resources to address those rising rates in the future. All of that is something that needs to be carefully looked at and talked through and be realistic about the fact that it will not be engaged in a global basis in the current fiscal situation given the current political will the American People. Obviously theres an interaction between the resources we have available and political will. Obviously if we had infinite political will at times resources, and maybe vice versa. Even some of the speeches he made recently calculated that nato and the fact that the experience in afghanistan is not over yet, but hasnt been a terrifically happy one for nato and not might serve as lead to a which we just dont have the will anymore, the intention to stay on the same scale before, particularly the exception that her partners are are now pulling away. How do you think will really keep nato going . To sustain nato and keep it relevant given her budgetary restrictions . In intervening event poses a threat. We thought a Little Research and said nato the libya situation, where clearly the United States is not going to take the lead, was going to supply reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and a little bit of backup. Either nato getting together Going Forward are not. The threat of you stabilize libya, consequences of that for southern europe, the history with european presence they are as a precipitating event. But i think its going to take something similar to that, one issue that potentially could be that is the whole situation of their weapons things in the fact that europe would be easily within the gunsight would be a significant consequence for those nations closest to the middle east with a Nuclear Armed iran. Thats a bit on the security side. You alluded to the Development Side they kind of want everything together, but when you talk about the demented mass quantity of the budget devoted to a common message you have in mind as to Development Assistance for that is always a vulnerable part of the budget. I see during the Early Campaign the only program will cut rates foreign aid. Tell us your view about how we can put that on a sustainable basis politically. How can you persuade the public is being used efficiently . What is working and what is not . The key word is sufficiently. We have to demonstrate that the money that is taxpayer money being spent on trent sent overseas is number one in our Strategic National interests. We have to articulate what that interest is. Secondly, we have to go beyond sending the money so it gets deposited into a belief that countries this bank account. Do we have to demonstrate the money is perfect for use to redress certain things. Give george w. Bush significant for pat fire and out for, because they have set a set of standards that these are values. If you are able to enforce implements and enforces standards, we will provide you the support and theres some very good success stories. This is a typical climate with which to go back home and tell people this is something that works and is in our national interest. We have a moral commitment on tragic things happening in disease and so forth. As we see with happening now in africa, particularly on the threats they are and changes taking place. I know general walters here. Ive got my acronyms mixed at. He was deputy to jim jones and spent a lot of time looking at africa from the standpoint of his position in europe, kind of foreshadowing what was to calm and pleading for engagement in president s in dealing with what was happening there. Now we see some of the consequences of that plane out. So this guy to make the case to the American People. Weve got to show we are effectively spending money for the right reasons and international interests. There is an underlying moral commitment to address some of these major nutrition all disease related problems in doing so americas presence is a positive, not in a few days. You now, theres a whole other issue facing now because of the backlash against the United States in a country like pakistan and each at, which are large recipients of the public majority that is military, but there is a very powerful sentiment that this evil dont like us. They take our money and burn our flag. Luscious cut them off. Obviously theres been resolutions and so forth. Talk about how you respond to you think the country how to respond to that very powerful sentiment. Well, the Common Thread here is the presence of al qaeda and its affiliates in the threat that poses to the world from the standpoint of stability and peaceful transition of government. We are reminded that almost every day and its a crested that sweeps across the middle of the world, starting in indignation at coming across Northern Africa and now moving down to the subsaharan parts of africa. This is a threat that has enormous implications. Weve seen ignoring the threat as we did in afghanistan pre9 11 leads to dire consequences potentially for americans. It is true the American Public is more weary, but nevertheless we are reminded every day that works and journalists i want to get that mentioned a manner. For a living in a of world. Its hard to define where this thread is because it pops up everywhere. Its like whack a mole. He whack iraq and they do you think in and youre back in afghanistan and do that and all the sudden were in libya and algeria and things are happening that pose real threats, particularly at a time when the possibility of the combination of a weapon of mass destruction and terrorist and can result in an attack on american presence, whether its there or whether its here. That is a grave threat that we have to keep reminding the American People that we are only one attack a way for weapons of mass distraction to the total destruction of major u. S. City. We dont want to have to reengage our thinking and how we use our forces and diplomacy to address these kinds of things in another post 9 11 scenario. Doing it ahead of time, without thinking a while, im not quite real to do that unless theres another defining event that may have horrible consequences. I guess part of what youre saying is they may be a sense that when we spend a lot of money to a country that we should be entitled to loyalty and control in some kind of client like status. It would be nice if they said thank you. But i guess what youre saying is in a way the money we send in a place that pakistan or egypt is remaining a player there. The price of being in the game in those countries. The mistake though its not holding those countries accountable to how that money is utilized and making a transparent bag to the American People and congress being effectively monitored and used in meets preconditions standards before we spend that money. Thats got to make a case to the American People or theyre not going to continue to support. Distortive specter of corruption and so forth is always hung over foreignmade. I think weve been saying in different ways, what is new is again the public sense that were being cut to ask here. A phrase you often hear and ive heard we need to start nationbuilding a home. I casually informed that pose extremely well, that line. Youre not only a foreignpolicy thinker, but a politician. But politically its the effect is counter to that . Well, we have to acknowledge that we have the blood of nation noting to do here at home and that needs to be the priority. That reality is going to affect the kind of resources that will have available to do the kind of global engagement, global diplomacy that weve seen in the past. I think we are severely resource constrained and politically constrained them are going to have to prioritize and really make the case for whatever expenditures go out relative to military presence and span interstate diplomacy and foreign aid spending. That is the reality we have to deal with and i believe we will be forced to make some hard choices in that regard. Secondly, i would just simply say, as i say to virtually every Interest Group that comes into my office, heres the line. We know that resources are tight. We know we have to cut back, but our program is different from everybody elses and thats universal. Rather than argue with them, they simply say im not sure to argue as to whether your program deserves priority over the last group. So whether its bridges and roads, medical research, education or any number of other things that fall in the discretionary category to the defense spending. I simply say unless they have to come to the realization that unless we can address our mandatory spending, which is running away with the budget and ever shrinking ability to make decisions about how we as discretionary spending, and left to get control of that, everybody will fall short of what they want. So im not debating whether more money should go into medical research versus building bridges for infrastructure or whatever. Im simply saying all of that is squeezed and therefore asking you to support your senator or senators or representatives in giving them the back dont encourage to stand up and say we have to address this for everybody loses. And that is the message of the day and now we have no election over that issue. For having a debate in Congress Every day over that issue. To this point, the president has not indicated postelection that he thought that it used about addressing the mandatory spending issue. And we cant get there until he dies dies because without his leadership the matter what Congress Called both together in this regard its not going to go forward. That to me is the challenge of the day and that has a very significant play on our National Security, our ability to fund our military so they can engage where we needed to engage. We cant solve everything through drones. That has major implications on diplomacy and for nato to take other because its right on the priority list and so that is the overarching issue. I say absent an intervening event like we had a 9 11, shaw priority became number one and everybody rallied around. Trust me, we dont want that to be the reason, the impetus for change in our policy. We want to do everything we can possibly do to keep that intervening event from happening to cause us to be or is thinking. I got the idea for the lobby. All the groups that depend on the discretionary budget together in one giant lobby to gang up on medicare in that way they can save the money for the wrong things. Coalition of the discretionary. And marches down to the capital. Tens of thousands of people say wait a minute. Youre eating our lunch. Im going to go out. I can see them going out. Just to wrap this up before we go to question, give us a preview. Obviously the right the middle of a huge debate thats going to get even huger. Give us your best sense of how these accounts were discussing are going to scare the next two to three months. Not well. Sequesters living. He saw the house yesterday to a tactical position of taking the debt limit off the table for three months or so. But the focus now will be on the sequester and those have been saying ever since the budget control act that we never can let this happen, particularly on the defense side are going to see enormous pressure to that happen. We cannot come up with a grand bargain. Theres not been in play right now it looks like the white house will accept on a grand bargain and the sequester and the resolution of the budget that comes in march. Those two are going to have some out and spending attacks to it in my opinion and it makes it more difficult than it rdas. Thanks for your comments and now is the time. The gentleman with the camera is waving. I just want to know if im doing the right inherent. I am with you a tv national. My service my question is how do you think they may affect afghanistan and development the guns in 2014 . With our design decisions made relative to presence in afghanistan and they certainly dont serve currently in the Foreign Relations committee and im certainly not as up to speed as people in this room relative to the assessment of what that might. But we get conflict and reports relative to how successful this current government in afghanistan can be without the significant american presence. We see is difficult enough that the small contingency pretty much inside the perimeter and continue to see a lot of factions fighting in afghanistan looks to be about a 10 fold magnitude of what potentially could have been with the u. S. Reduction in presence. Ive always said afghanistan is really about pakistan. And the instability they are the picture thats being painted here is a significantly less presence of u. S. Involvement in that region because the consequences that come from not. I shouldve said when we need to ask your questions, ask them with the mic and stan identify yourself and keep your questions short. It was time, back to you. Yes, sir, right here. Please identify yourself. Jack james from the American Institute for german studies. I want to ask you about europe and whether or not you think there is enough support coming from europe to deal with those issues. We talked about germany as you well know and britain going in and out in afghanistan. The french are in mali. Theres been criticism about holding that. You just mentioned constraints. Is it not the case we had to not only expect if we can get it, europe could be helpful in areas that they cannot necessarily have have a large footprint in. You know europe as well as i do in that . Is do you expect that is something we can see more of in the future as a face their own constraints at home. The constraints are even greater than ours in the public will to engage in not is even less than ours. Thats why a lot of questions are r