the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar 183, s. 3619.

the clerk: s. 1619, a bill to provide for identification of misaligned currency, require action to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, i have a cloture motion that is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 183, s. 1619, a bill to provide for identification of misaligned currency, require action to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that on monday, october 3, at 4:30 p.m. -- madam president, i failed to ask that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived in the previous matter. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that on monday, october october 3, 2011, at 4:30 p.m.,

the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar nos 113, 171, 172, 173, 184, and 357. that there be one hour of debate equally divided in the usual form. upon the use or yielding back of that time, calendar number 171, 172, 173, 184 and 357 be confirmed. the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on calendar number 113. further, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consequence -- consulting with the republican leader not prior to october 11, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations. calendars number 250, 251, 252 and 253. that there be two hours of debate equally divided in the usual form. upon the use of time, the senate proceed to vote on the nominations in the order listed. further, that all listed

nominations the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that any statements to the nomination be printed in the record, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations. calendar numbers 281, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 343, 349, 350, 351, 362, 368, 369, 370 and 404, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action

or debate that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations and any related statements be printed in the record and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the homeland security and government affairs committee be discharged from further consideration and presidential nomination 541, marking the act of the postal regulatory commission. nomination 552, robert todd, postal regulatory commission. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. there be no intervening action or debate, no further motions in order that the nominations of any statements be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: madam president, we have been working very hard on heather higginbottom. she has been nominated to be deputy director of the office of management and budget. a very, very important assignment. we have been trying to confirm her for almost six months. i hope and understand that senator kyl is working with the administration on something that will clear these nominations. i'm not going to ask consent tonight, but all my republican colleagues should be prepared for a unanimous consent request on this nomination when we return next week. i hope that senator kyl will allow this nomination to go forward after his request is satisfied. i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider executive calendar numbers 2 and 3 which are treaty documents 110-23, 111-6, that the treaties be

considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions for ratification. that any further declarations be agreed to as applicable, that any statements be printed in the record as if read. further, when the votes on the resolution for ratification are taken, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc. that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. mr. reid: madam president. the clerk: treaty document 110-23, investment treaty with rwanda. treaty-doc 111-6, mutual assistance treaty with bermuda. mr. reid: i ask for division upon each of the resolutions of ratification. the presiding officer: a division vote has been requested on treaty document 110-23. all those in favor stand and be

counted. all those opposed stand and be counted. on a division vote, two-thirds of the senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution of ratification is agreed to. a division vote has been requested on treaty document 111-6. all those in favor stand and be counted. all those opposed stand and be counted. on a division vote, two-thirds of the senators present having voted in the affirmative, the resolution ratification is agreed to. mr. reid: i will ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to calendar number 174. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 174, 174, -- the presiding officer: the senate returns to legislative session. the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar 174, h.r. 2005, an act to authorize the combating autism act of 2006. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? mr. reid: i know of no further debate on this matter, madam president. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. being no further debate, the question is on the passage of the bill. all those in favor say aye. mr. reid: aye. the presiding officer: all those opposed. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any statements relating to this bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 176, s. 1280. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 176,

s. 1280, a bill to amend the peace corps act, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the committee report amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table and any statements relating to this matter appear at the appropriate place in the record as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the judicial committee be discharged from further consideration of s.j. res. 22. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s.j. res. 22, to grant the consent of congress to an amendment to the compact between the states of missouri and illinois, providing that bonds issued by the bistate development agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid -- made and laid on the table. there being no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this

matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed now to h. con. res. 81. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h. con. res. 81, directing the clerk of the house of representatives to make a correct in the enrollment of h.r. 2608. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that we now -- i ask consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 275. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 275, designating october 30, 2011, as a national day of remembrance for nuclear weapons program workers. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter appear in the record at the appropriate place as if given. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate now proceed to s. res. 283. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 283, designating the year of 2011 as international year of chemistry. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 284 now. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 284, designating september 23, 2011, as national falls prevention awareness day to raise awareness and encourage the prevention of falls among older adults. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will

proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until thursday, september 29, 2011, at 1:45 p.m., for a pro forma session only, with no business conducted & following the pro forma session, the senate adjourn until monday, october 3, threive, at 2:00 p.m. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning hour be deemed expired and time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. the senate be in a period of morning business until 33:03:78. -- 3:30 p.m. following morning business, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 1619, currency exchange rate oversight reform act with the time until 4:30 p.m. equally

divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. at 4:30 p.m., the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. finally, that the cloture vote with respect to the motion to proceed to s. 1619 occur when the senate resumes legislative session following the roll call vote on the confirmation of henry floyd to be united states circuit judge for the fourth circuit. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, then there will be two roll call votes at 5:30 p.m. on monday. the first vote will be confirmation of henry floyd of south carolina, and the second vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 1619. so if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 1:45 p.m. thursday, september 29.

this week on the communicators a look insight into google business practices. this past week a senate subcommittee held a hearing on the topic including whether the google search engine is biased in the way it displays search results. our guests are scott cleland, publisher of googlemonitor.com and david balto, an antitrust attorney. >> welcome this week the antitrust subcommittee and the

judiciary committee held a hearing on the google business practices. that's our topic this week on the communicators. we have two guests this week. coming up, the former ftc commissioner for the competition bureau will be out here to talk about google's business practices. but first we want to introduce you to scott cleland to read mr. cleland is the publisher or the president of precursor. he's also the publisher of a publication called googlemonitor.com and author of the book search and destroy why you can't trust google. mr. cleland, ase google worthy of being investigated by the ftc and the senate antitrust committee? >> yes it is. it has more formulations on the antitrust law than any company in the last four years. i've had four official ones and they are being investigated on three different continents, and just in august, they pleaded

guilty in a noncriminal mom prosecution agreement of promoting illegal pharmacy sales. and they have a lot of other issues that have put them under the spotlight so it's deserved. >> do you think they are a victim of their own success because of their size? >> yeah, they are a victim of a very radical views and that is they don't believe the law applies to them. they don't respect other people's property rights. they don't respect privacy. they believe in a radical transparency come and they basically believe that the rules don't apply to them and so most all of google's problems are self-inflicted because they don't play by rules and the game, and they don't obey the law. >> what you mean by radical transparency? >> as you know, julie and massages for the article transparency and that we keep leaks and what is interesting is once he came out responsible

publications or the sending of the confidential confirmation and amazon no longer posted them and paid health no longer took them some people still stepped back. they backed him completely the wachtel the indexed all of his stolen documents and made them available to everybody on the web. al qaeda and sending these decisions at the highest levels. >> the tech reporter for the hill newspapers and he writes the hill column. >> agree to ask you to expand when you talk about radical transparency. you say that google is building more antitrust violation can be more specific in terms of what you think they are guilty of? >> in 2008 there was a antitrust on two occasions to drop the agreement and the doj felt that

they broke up the microsoft merger and then created a collusive arrangement with yahoo! they wanted to get approved and they would have given over 90% of the search advertising. just last year they were found to be colluding the 500 companies on restricting the competition for highly skilled workers. the department of justice also opposed them on the settlement, google has illegally copied 15 million books and still counting the doj and federal judge object to that and also the ftc forced the google ceo schmidt of of the apple board as an anticompetitive arrangement. >> now, specifically to the issue of yesterday's hearing which is the search rankings, competitors complained and google was integrating some of its outside services to the search results thereby giving them an advantage on flow were in the rankings. in your view is this an

antitrust violation and why? >> it is under section 5 of the ftc deceptive and unfair practices are illegal. it probably also could be a violation but google's problem, advertising was a perfectly legitimate business the eni to represent your customer is and that is google gets money every year from advertisers, however, they always represent and represented under oath yesterday that they always focus on the usurp. so they have led to users to believe they can trust them and they've had websites the contrast them by representing publicly that they don't have any of drearier motive but to serve the user. the steady billion dollars worth of ulterior motive to take care of advertisers and so, what they have done is to have created a misrepresentation come a deceptive situation, and it's basically the everybody knows the term bate and switch.

they basically created a dominant search engine by telling everybody that it was unbiased and you could trust it. then they came along and created 500 products and services and started drinking themselves first and that was clearly by is and they still maintained that is unbiased. so the main problem is they are being highly effective and that is illegal. >> you say they are being deceptive when the market themselves. we know the unofficial slogan is down to be evil. how was the different from state insurance company representing itself acting in the interest of its customers when a natural that we all know that insurance companies, like every other business, are concerned with their bottom line. so that seems to be marketing technique to me, and i don't understand why the would be differently applied in this case. >> i think that the ftc has already done with google on march 30 if they found they had a settlement with google and it was actually a harsh settlement, probably the harshest ever because google was found with

deceptive privacy practices and essentially saying that the private information to consumers wouldn't be used in any other way than they say. they came along and they combined the gmail contact list with what google does. so they basically finally did it and had to admit that to the ftc. and they have 20 years of audits and oversight because of that. that is exactly the problem they have here and so i think it is going to be quite clear. google has promised they would do one thing, serve the users and the evidence is overwhelming that they have a financial conflict that they refuse to disclose. my point is what's wrong with just being fair and open and disclose honestly what your business is. and if you are putting your own information on the rankings say that it's because it's the best, not because your unbiased. clearly every latinos that they are biased.

>> i want to get your response to this. senator kohl, this chairman of the subcommittee asked eric schmidt, the executive chair yesterday or this week about whether or not deutsch will exit its body is in its rankings. here is mr. smith's answer. >> with respect to the ranking and a bias, it's ultimately a judgment what comes first or second. and in our case because we have so many things to rank it wouldn't be possible for me to explain to your assessment or to my own white one link about this testimony and then my testimony was one high year or lower. it's a complex formula involving influence and who points to whom and the way in which it is expressed so forth using of the proprietary that google has developed which we are very proud of. it's the best that we can do, and i want to say right up front that we do occasionally make mistakes.

>> there was a very complicated answer, one that could have been simple. they have committed that they put certain things like google finance number one. so they decided that, and some of their executives have said it's only fair we've created the problem is 34% of the business goes to the first so they've already said that in some instances they have chosen to put the google's contant first because they think it's fair and they spend money on it and not because it's the best. so their problem here from my standpoint i think is the of been very effective under the law and they are going to have trouble. they also have the antitrust problems because i think the done a lot more than just deceptive. but the reason i mention of focus is their defense is we would do tv could never do anything the would harm

consumers. by law if you defeat consumers you are harming them and the reason we have them as we all know during the housing double the conflict of interest people were not telling people the certain things during the technical bubble, wall street wasn't disclosing their conflict of interest, enron, they didn't disclose conflicts of interest, so it's very important. if you take away honest disclosure and fair representation you take away the first line of defense for a consumer which is they can say should my trust meter be high or low and can i trust these people? that's why we have an ftc that when people are deceptive the ultimately get busted and i believe google would be busted on that. >> before we came here on the studio i went on google and i typed book online trouble and the first sight that cannot is expedia.com and that is a microsoft backed company, is it not? so does that counter what you've just told us about google putting its own company of the

top? >> i think that in that case you might say so but you need to look at it over time and not look at it may be from d.c. because there have been some past cases where they generated different results in different cities during different court cases. and so, you know, wire i think they will be most trouble is when they are in an obvious case that they have decided to place their content ahead of others and then they are going to have to justify why did they do that and they continue to maintain. we've been to work for the motive, we did it because we believe that is best for the users. most people when they hear that they know that doesn't pass the test because most people know that businesses do have a profit motive and there is nothing wrong with a profit motive. the whole point i am making here is in business, parts of the world and by a free-market here as friedman says, the free market you have to follow the

rules of the game and that includes not being effective for fraudulent and google's problem is the have been highly effective to consumers, websites and advertisers. >> scott cleland is the author of search and destroy what you can't trust google. he's also a blotter. before capitalist is the blog and he's the chairman of net competition board and is the president of precursor and the publisher of googlemonitor.com. gutham nagesh as with the help is bigger, technology reporter. silicon valley is where you can find his stuff. next question. >> now, chairman eric schmidt in response to some of your concerns, his answer as he indicated as said google believes providing answers to questions such as the definition of a word is in the consumer's interest. he was also quick to point out that consumers are free to use one of the alternative search services which in many cases offers similar augmented the search features as you are

describing. it sounds like you are arguing that search is a distinct market that needs to be regulated. can you explain exactly what he would like to see take place? >> i certainly don't believe it should be regulated and i certainly don't advocate that. search engines are separate of the market because they argued if you follow them, which i did, and how they represented themselves and how they talked about themselves under the sec regulations to investors, they said search advertising different. they said it shouldn't be considered like radio and tv because it is interactive and it is based on intentions. so in the court of law, if they try to say that the market is different, there are going to be literally millions and millions of videos and written places where they set themselves that search advertising was the market that they were describing. so this is once again where they are not being truthful.

>> now when you see that search advertising, what exactly do you mean in terms of the year being deceptive? are using the ads they are placing are deceptive for the year being deceptive in the fact they are not disclosing the information that is being provided the top of the answer is coming from them? >> they are being deceptive in multiple ways. they're saying search advertising is just like every other advertising. when they are due to their investors to make the stock go up is unique in that it should be given special consideration. it was different for the others and advertising. deception number two, they say that they want free users. they don't work for users. users don't pay them a dime. users are the product they sailed to consult the advertisers that pay them and there's nothing wrong with advertising. it's a perfectly legitimate business but you must disclose and make it clear what your interests are so the consumers know that they've got a fair disclosure and honest information.

that is deceptive. and then they also say deceptively that competition is one click away. but they don't tell you is that as a 100 topside if you click away, 97 of those 100 sites will go right to google because they do the outsourced search for them. there's only three in the top 100 that our competitors. so, all of the defenses are the strong argument this should not be compared to microsoft. what they are really saying is microsoft we didn't break the law. any person knows that there are many ways to break the law, not just the one on the way the person that did it before you. so, when you deconstructs on their argument is almost always a straw man argument. when they say something that everybody knows is true and then the defendant. >> finally, mr. cleland to

follow-up on gutham nagesh's question, what specifically would like to see the ftc deutsch and the doj to do to get involved? >> well, what i think about google is that the problem i fink don't obey the law, they don't respect people or property, privacy or the rule of law. and so i just think if we have law enforcement do their job, and if google also is ethical, if they would simply follow the golden rule and treat others the way they want to be treated, i don't think anybody would have trouble with google. their problem is they treat people the way they would never want to be treated and they don't obey the law. that is the main problem with the google. >> and where does the ftc's all? >> the ftc is the one that is the honesty police. they say are these people forthrightly running their business and then they are also the ones that say if you break the law and if you do things that are illegal and it helps give you a monopoly power and

you try to extend that monopoly to other markets like they did where now they have 90% of the mobile search market than that is an antitrust violation. so i fink let the chips fall where they may and the law enforcement runout but i think the facts are overwhelming, and i think google would be wise to sell. >> scott cleland, publisher of googlemonitor.com, thank you for being on the communicators. coming up in just a minute, former ftc bureau competition policy director david balto. but first, i want to show you this from the hearing this week. jeremy is the president or chair of the yelp, an act and he testified as well, not with eric schmidt but after eric schmidt, and he talked about how googled used its product and his viewpoint on that and then we will hear from jeremy and we will hear from eric schmidt, his

view on yelp as well and then we will be back with david balto. >> google's web sites provide their content for free to benefit google's own competing product, not consumers. google then gives its own product preferential treatment in the google search results. the first began taking the content without permission and year ago. despite public and private protest, google gave the ultimatum that only a monopolist can give. in order to appear in web search you must allow us to use your content and compete against you. as everyone in this room knows, not being in google is equivalent to notte existing on the internet. we have no choice. questionable practices remain. website in the search results now take a back seat in their own competing products. this is typically accomplished by calling a special attention to the google owned property for larger tax hike graphics,

isolated placements and pushing objectively ranked websites down the page. what we are most concerned about is that google is longer satisfied with planting the users to the best content anywhere on the web it can be found. instead it seems they prefer to send users to the most profitable content on the web which is naturally their own. ..

>> mr. balto, you heard yelp's complaint against google, what's your response to that? >> guest: if this was a generalizable problem, maybe there would be something worth looking at, but, you know, i think google greatly enhanced the opportunities for yelp. they have tremendous opportunities for being on google, and there's no significant evidence that google is disadvantaging people the way yelp suggested. >> host: during the clinton administration, do you think that google warrants an ftc senate investigation? >> guest: i think it's always worthwhile when problematic conduct has been raised for enforcement agencies to look at what's going on, and what's what the ftc's decided what to do. when you look at google's conduct overall, they have the consumer mind because they

recognize the alternatives consumers have are no further away than their hand in a mouth, and because of that, they are revising their products to try to protect the interest of consumers and provide consumers the best product possible. >> host: gautham nagesh of the hill newspaper. >> guest: thank you. you say the market is self-regulating and consumers can choose another service with a click, but google is synonymous with web search and it means to search something on the web. they have, i think, in access of 90% of mobile service and in europe they hold 9 # 5% of the general web search market. there's concerns that they hold a monopoly in the market. do they in your view? >> guest: in my two decades of anti-trust enforcer, i learned not to confuse size with power. in this case, i think the question about whether google is truly a monopolist is very

ambiguous. evidence points the other way. you can't be a moo notary public plies until you enforce consumers to purchase your product and raise prices significantly. that does not exist here. look at how the market is structured and the success of bing that didn't exist two years and two now has 29% of the market, there's nine impediments to entry. look at the market di nameically and not just take a snapshot approach of hot market east exist, how how they are changing. we think of search and the yahoo searches. there's ways to find information. if you want a product use amazon or ebay or if there's other information go to facebook or

wikipedia. google is one of numerous choices. >> host: is it a conflict to position information sources like finance or google maps at the top of the search rankings? >> guest: well, first, if google did that, instead of facebook, i would use orkut, google's failed project or instead of wikipedia, i'd use knol. there's no evidence that occurs. we have to pause for a second although it sundays like from mr. cleland's per specttive that's not fair, but we want the strongest rivals to the best products and hamper google's opportunity to come up with better products to say that they couldn't go and have some type of preference i think might inhibit their ability to develop

new and better products. >> host: last guest said that google does not play by the rules. do you agree with that? >> guest: i couldn't disagree more. you know, i think just dealing with the point about deception, look, clear standards on deception. the ftc has an active internet policeman, and if google did something wrong long ago, they would have acted. you know, in terms of the question of disclosure and transparency, back in 2003, the ftc said you got to label ads in which you're receiving money, and that's what google does. you know, google has an admirable program of transparency for consumers and advertisers, so remember this is different than, you know, sort of buying a product and dealing with the product for a long period of time and having significant cause to switch to

another product. here, if you're wondering whether or not there's an honest result from google, just move that mouse and go to bing, yahoo or facebook and you can see if you're getting fair results. >> host: in the "wall street journal" the day after google operation hearing in the senate, this headline in the "wall street journal" "google defends dominance." is that a fair headline? >> guest: i wish i could be the editor of "wall street journal" headlines. i would say google defends popularity, but not as many issues of the "wall street journal" would have been sold if that's the case. >> host: what can the ftc do? >> guest: well, i think that's a difficult problem won that the -- one that the ftc and congress should struggle with early on. interesting from the hearing, peter, that you didn't hear anybody say we need ftc enforcement action. senators made it clear.

enforcement actions are com beer smit, untimely, and it's very difficult to reach the right result through an anti-trust case. it was clear listening to senator lee or the other senators that they didn't want regulation. they said, no, no, no, regulation is not the right way to go. even mr. cleland said it's not the right way to go. if there's a need for something, based on what the witnesses said, google should police itself. i think they are doing an admirable job of policing itself, but is there something more because of consumer command and google's recognition that consumer is king, they'll find the way to correct their systems so consumers are best served. >> host: it sounds like you take him at his word saying google is run on a set of principles like solving the problems the consumer has. should federal regulators take a

for-profit company at its word they are acting rightly especially when you consider google has been found to have violated consumer's privacy by the federal trade commission in packaging the buzz project e-mail and in the pharmaceutical settlement mentioned. their record is not spotless. when you say google acts with consumers' interest in miebd, are they different than other web companies or companies at large? >> guest: no, that's an important point. what google is doing is similar to what any other search engine does or other companies do. they sort of recognize certain principles that they all try to abide by. now, it's appropriate to go and examine what is going on with their decisions on search, and that's what the federal trade cigs is doing, but examining the tens of thousands of algorithms they consider every year and the

500 changes they make, i think they are going to find an awfully good record by google in trying to come up with the best results for consumers. >> host: are you employed at all by google? >> guest: no, i'm not. >> host: anti-trust lawyer, former head at the federal trade commission. what were the anti-trust cases you were involved in, and how do you rule or how did the commission rule? >> guest: sure. i was involved in a case against intel and pharmaceutical manufacturers for anti-competitive conduct. one thing. i'm a public anti-trust lawyer spending 90% of the time representing consumers' union, federation, and trust groups like that. i carefully thought about going 8's conduct -- google's conduct, and it struck me as being, you know, very pro-competitive, and that's the reason why you don't see significant consumer groups not funded by some of googles'

rivals raising concerns about this. you didn't hear a consumer yesterday raising concerns about google's conduct, and that silence, i think, is very important. >> host: gautham nagesh? >> guest: google expanded in the new areas, and that's raised a lot of the complaints that we're talking about, specifically with the case of yelp, their ceo is referring to copyright violations 234 their view or intellectual right property concerns. is it fair to say google pushes boundaries of existing laws in terms of what they view is private or what should be in the public domain because that is one of the concerns that we're in uncharted waters and companies like google and facebook have what they believe is what the conceptions of the issues look like in the future. do you think google is forward looking in the way they treat these areas? >> guest: when you take the example of the google book of project, in which google scanned in millions and millions of books, so if i'm a young girl

living on an indian reservation or a boy in inner city los angeles, i now through the google books project have access to a library as significant as the oxford library. they deserve credit for being forward looking in thinking about how we can overcome the information divide, and in that respect, i think, their conduct is laudatory. >> guest: what about services like yelp that complain when google uses their content or introduces a service that mimics what they provide and place it on the search page and that eliminates their business. is that just a consequence of business on the web? >> guest: from a consumer's perspective, you know, the having greater rivalry, having google create a product similar to yep's, having local search projects, that's competition, and competition benefits consumers.

>> guest: now, the concern with monopolies is when they expand in new areas, they use the areas where they are dominant to boost their services. in your view, that's not a concern here. the search market is not the reason why products like google maps are more popular than map quest, for example? >> guest: correct which is why i never used orkut, the equivalent of facebook. >> host: you when around when microsoft was in the anti-trust hot seat. is there a comparison to see between these two? >>the sets of hearings? >> guest: no greater comparison between that and myself and matt damon. look, my cro soft -- first of all, microsoft consumed significant amounts of money. i never got a bill from google. microsoft locked consumers in. if you wanted to go and switch from their operating system, you had to go buy another operating

system, try to install it, and they created incompatibilities so it was difficult to install. there were chains around manufacturers to be difficult for them to go and offer other kinds of operating systems. you know to paraphrase, i know moo notary -- monopolists, and i've sued them, and microsoft is not one of them. >> host: didn't they develop their system? >> guest: it was too far. the development was fine, but denying consumer's choice, denying them to switch to something else, that's how they went to follow the law. google is not doing anything that denies consumers the ability to switch from one engine to another. >> host: next question, gautham nagesh. >> guest: you talked about the fact google does not charge customers, but it's different from microsoft in the sense they

make money from advertising. in other areas, most notably in the media, there's competition laws restricted the relationships between paid advertisements and disclosures of editor yule or sponsored content. is that appropriate for google? >> guest: i think we, you know, the message of the hearing yesterday was one of transparency. is there adequate disclosures so consumers know? keep in mind, you know, this is not something it's the one newspaper you read or it's a one newspaper town because you can readily switch to other forms of search to see if you get the fairer search from google. that forces them to keep things fair, so i don't think that regulation would be necessary. >> host: david balto, working with google and advising eric schmidt, how would you judge his performance? >> guest: tremendously candid. these questions are complicated,

but the committee and mr. schmidt deserve tremendous credit for highlights of issue that consumers care a lot about, and, you know, helping to clarify what's going on in the market president >> host: david balto, former policy director of the bureau of competition for the federal trade commission during the clinton administration, and a long time anti-trust attorney. thank you for being on the communicators. gautham nagesh is our guest reporter, a technology reporter for the hill newspaper. thehill.com is the welcomes. hillican valley 1 where you find his materials. thank you, gentlemen. >> guest: thanks. >> guest: thanks.

>> the head of the training mission in afghanistan says several local police officers sacrifice the themselves in order to stop suicide bombers on the day the u.s. embassy was attacked. lieutenant general david caldwell spoke. commanding general of nato training mission in afghanistan and commission command in afghanistan. general caldwell assumed duties

in 2009 with his afghan ministry of defense in the ministry of the interior. now, nearly 22 months laird, joining us from kabul to update us on training and development of the security force. general makes opening comments and thin take your questions. with that, i'll turn it over to him. general? >> thanks, george. i assume you can hear me okay. i'll start by saying i appreciate the opportunity to have the ability to come back and talk to you, well over a year i left to the pentagon press corp., but there's been significant progress and changes occurring over this really not just the last year, but two years looking back. two years ago when we made the decision, nato did, to stand up the mission in afghanistan, the key thing they did was they made sure we had the right resources with the right strategy, what

the right kind of people were necessary with the skill sets and put the right organization in place that enabled us to get after the mission that was so critical, so much so, you know, today i say the return on the investment we're starting to see is pretty significant from the efforts made in the last two years by the men and women of this international community. to me, it's a clear sign the afghans are moving forward and will have the ability here in december 2014 to assume the lead for security here in their country, so when i say tremendous progress was made, to put it in perspective, september 2009, only 800 young men decided they wanted to join the afghan national army. this past month in september, we had over 8,000 young men decide to join the afghan national army, and that's not something that just happened this month. it's been going on since december of 2009 where we've had more than ample recruits every single month voluntarying to join and become a part of the

afghan national army and police. over the last 23 months almost now we've grown the afghan police and army by over 114,000 new personnel into each of those forces which are really helping the afghans move forward. very often you hear about the serge. we call it the afghan serge which is starting to make tremendous difference here today in afghanistan and setting conditions that will enable the draw down of combat forces to start taking place here this december, and then, of course, in much greater numbers next year. we've also seen the geographic decisions take place. again, seven areas at this point, obviously with more coming here in the fall. the one thing i will tell you that nato training mission has been able to do is get thinged standardized. there's a lot of individual dispaired efforts, great pockets of excellence out there around this country of many different areas, but one thing nato training mission was able to do was get a standardized program

of instruction set, not only for the army, but now for the police forces too, of afghanistan, a major step forward, and everyone in afghanistan today is now receiving the same io identical time of police training. we reduced the untrained police we found in 2009 from about 50,000 out there who had never gone through former police training down to about 20,000 today, a significant step forward. still some more to go, obviously, but there's a plan in place, and we're deliberately getting at that and bringing them out of the fielded force back into a formal training system, putting them through eight weeks of training, and returning them back to where they had come from. we increased the amount of civilian police trainers. again, when we stood up the command in november of 2009, we had one civilian police trainer in the entire organization of about 1200 people at that time. today, we have over 525 civilian police trainers. these are true -- these are the

royal canadian mownties, the bodies from the united kingdoms, the -- from throughout europe, and it's made a significant uplift, and recently had the australian federal police joining us in contributing to the effort. the other thing we worked hard at is what was a all contract based training program to a coalition program now evolving into an afghan led training program. key there is today we have over 3100 afghans assigned a training instructor positions with a very deliberate approved program of certification that takes place, and today with over half of those, 1500 having been certified through 5 deliberate process and others going through that eventually leading to december of 2012 when the afghans will be in the lead for

training at the very basic level at all training institutions here in afghanistan which will be, again, another significant step forward in giving them the capacity and the capability to make this a long term and enduring thing, and in developing these trainers has been key, but the institutions have been the hallmark of what we've done. from day one, the number one priority is leader development, and we trained just over 50,000 new police and army officers and noncommissioned officers and added them to the force where there was a significant deficit that existed in 2009, so while we are growing the force, this 114,000 additional folks, almost half of them have been leaders that we've been able to put into that force which is now starting to make a real difference out there in not only how they perform, but more importantly, how they professionalize as we move forward. the institutions we put into

place, the national military academy of afghans in place already; though now up and downed and brought in the first class of 600 students in march. that remains in effect for the out years. there's schools for the police and army. sufficient numbers now today able to produce the required officers for each of those organizations, and then we've got other things going on from known commissioner officer courses to the national police academy of afghanistan, and as you might have heard in 2013, we'll stand up what we're calling cherst in the stand to replace the army schools with a one year officer program that also then continues feeding leaders into the army in the out years. again, if we want this investment being made here to endure, it's going to be critical that we stand up those institutions that will enable that to happen, and that's what we're doing through the leader development programs. we've also started a very

deliberate effort for professionalizing this force. we're now developing the first time importance specialty skills out there that are really essential. we developed combat forces first. we're now getting to the much more challenging and difficult area of developing specialty skills. past may, we opened up last of the 12 specialty vocational skills doing everything from engineering, human resources, communications, those type of skill sets that are absolutely essential for a police and army force. again, to become more professionalized and be a more self-sustaining 07b their own. we have been able to do this by putting a very robust literacy program. again, looking at the

number has been increasing over time, but it's increasing over the last six to eight monthings implementing the system. we trained over 650,000 afghans into some form of literacy training currently today serving out in about 305,000. by this december, we stiment that -- estimate half of the afghan army and police will have received some form of literacy training they didn't have before they came into the military or police force. again, 24 sets the foundation

for us to get to the professionalization that is important long term. continuing force two, we realized, too, that we have also been spending time getting advances in areas like their growth objectives we know that in 2011, army and police meet growth objectives established for them will, in fact, what is stated to be a goal of 305,000 moving to next year. we have the systems in place needed to do the specialization of the force, the leader development programs, things we're working on now that are still challenging, but it's what we put into the developmental plan now getting after lo gist ticks and manet nans and medical. those are three areas that we'll start focusing more and more on. again, with the foundation being literacy to enable us to do the

specialty skill trainings, stand up the systems to make them robust and more independent than where they are operating today. specialty skills is an area that will continue to focus on. stewardship is another one. there's an enormous investment here in the community over the last couple years of giving them infrastructure and equipment and material. we now need to make sure to be good stewards of this and maintain and care and keep good control of that. we'll work on sustainable systems and that's the parts about maintenance and lo gist ticks and medical that are important. after two years as we look at what we've learned from this, it's apparent that the number one thing in a mission like this is leader development. if you have able, capable leaders, you know, it doesn't matter what kind of material you have or what kind of

institutions out there or foundations you have, you can build anything with capable leaders. leader development has been and comets to be our number one priority. the second thing is, the importance of literacy. would not -- i've told the story many times the fact about when i arrived here, it was apparent within the first two or three months, very much thanks to the late ambassador richard holbrooke that talked to me about this issue that nobody had every really taken it on. that was right. if you have the foundation, you have the ability to move forward and start the specialization of the force. third is the relevance of nato. again, i was probably a skeptic as to what the future of nato would hold. if not for this nato organization, we would have been unable to achieve and accomplish the mission we set out to do. we started with two nations and we now have 37 nations contributing trainers here on the ground as a part of the

overall effort, you think it's one-sixth of the world's countries today involved in this training effort here in afghanistan, and, again, we went literally from one police professional to now about 525, enormous uplift to get at and accomplish the police mission. 245 gives you a -- this gives you a quick recap of the last two years and the challenges we see out ahead that we're going to take on and work as we continue moving forward, by if i could, i'll turn it back over to you at this time, george. >> general, thank you very much for that excellent recap, and we'll start with questions. i'll call on questioners from here in the pentagon briefing room. dan? >> yeah, general, can you give us an idea of how you assess the performance of the afghan security forces in these recent attacks in kabul including the one on the u.s. embassy and the nato headquarters, and second

question is can you also tell us how is it that that ethnic balance evolved in the force, and what is -- and do you think you've addressed the shortage of pashtuns that was always a concern? >> all right, dan, thanks. because i've been on the ground two years now, as i've watched the response by the security forces here in kabul, the thing i tell you is they are learning from each incident, and they are adapting getting better every time. the most recent attack is the most vivid example i saw in terms of how they handled that with a deliberate approach, you know, as ambassador here calls it harassment that occurred, but how they took down the building to minimize civilian casualties and ensure minimal damage to private property as they took

down that facility, but i was very impressed by the overall command and control. did we learn from that? we sure did. the after action reviews conducted of which we were able to be at with the afghans showed us more areas 20 refine and work on, but it really was interesting to watch what struck me the most was you saw the police force out there learning to serve and protect the people. they were willing to lay their lives down for the people of afghanistan. what you don't hear very much in the press is the stories about those police that gave their lives 245 day. you know, there were suicide bombers around the city, mostly about a 30-minute period they all activated themselves. one was at a local high school. a suicide bomber was moving to the crowd where the students were, and he went in and literally took and did a bear hug around the suicide bomber

when he blew himself up, and there in the process killed himself, but he was willing to give his life to protect the people of afghanistan, and that was a police officer by the name of john ali that did that. over at the incop headquarters in town when suicide bombers approached there, they were able to shoot and kill one of them, but the other one was able to get in close to the incop, and, again, there was a senior cop officer who did the exact same thing. he ran up and hugged a suicide bomber so when he detonated himself only him and the suicide bomber were killed, and the other soldiers that were around, the policemen, received minor injuries, and in another moi facility where another suicide bomber occurred again, police officials approached what they thought was a suspect out there, fire ensued between them, and in the process, one police officers was killed, the other wounded, but they were able to kill the

suicide bomber before he was able to set off his bomb. on that very day and in multiple places around here inside of kabul, policemen were really doing heroic deeds that we've seen little press of other than just a little tv here inside of afghanistan, so for us, they learn, adapt, and continue to get better. i tell you we continue to watch it closely. it is fairly balanced there in the forces. we watch it between obviously all the different et ethnicities and pashtuns and everyone else. the southern pashtuns is what we still have a very intense focus on, trying to raise the levels of numbers we are able to recruit, and when i say "we" i'm talking about the afghans. we have 40% of the afghan national army today composed of pashtuns, but they are not

pashtuns all from the south. in fact, this past month was the best recruiting month they had bringing in southern pashtuns into the afghanistan national army, and, again, that's because last fall the minister defense made a conscious effort putting in the two quarters down in the south, a general in each one who is a southern pashtun himself to do more outreach to the community, engage with the local elders, encourage the young men there to serve in the army and to be part of the whole recriewrting effort down in the -- recruiting effort down in the south. an upward climb, not where it needs to be yet, but the key 1 is it, in fact, improving? it's improving slowly but steadily, and over time, if it keeps moving like that, we'll see a better representation of southern pashtuns than we do today. >> david? >> general, it's david crowder from the l.a. times. i want to ask about the sustainment issue. last week it was said there's an effort to reduce the cost from

around $12 billion to -- about 80%. i guess my questions are how low do you think you can go there without jeopardizing the ability of the ana and anp to be able to sustain themselves once we draw down. second, what do you give up by going with dray maltic reductions. it seems you have to go low and that cuts into core capabilities here. >> well, i would -- in fact, two years ago i know about as much as money and programming as i do today. we spend a tremendous amount of time looking at cost and go out about seven years through a modeling effort we use here that we run and there's changes in the variables all the time, but i tell you in the out years, what you normally hear is long

term sustainable, the cost for 325,000 afghan force is $3 million and that's been said and agreed upon as the long term cost. what i tell you 1 from the efforts ongoing here it's going to be lower than that. over the last two years, there's tremendous effort at making things called the cass principle. how do you make it capable for the afghans, not for us, affordable, again, not for us because we have sufficient funding, but most importantly, how is it sustainable by them? do they have the human capital and ability to sustain this in which we are giving them? through that effort, we have been able to significantly reduce the overall equipment and quantities and organizations we built using this principle. i got it from the president of

afghanistans, one of the briefings, you know, talked to me and said, hey, general, i want to make sure whatever you do is affordable in the long term. what i will tell you, and the efforts we're doing, the two things that are very clear from people who are straightforward with us said under no conditions can we sacrifice in quality that we're producing or cut corners in training programs in place so whatever we do it's got to still maintain the same level of quality we have today, and we can't afford to give up any capability required for them to handle any level of insurgency out there. if you believe, and i do, that in the outyears the level of insurgency will go down, never go away because of the border region, but it will go down, and when it does, there's commission reduction to the size of the overall force, and when that occurs, that, in fact, in itself generates much smaller

sustainment costs in the outyears, but we review this. it's an effort that we continually work and working with sources from the international community to pay tar it in the long term, from the government of afghanistan itself and the contributions that the united states, you know, which are significant, that they are making to the effort too, but we continually ask ourselves are we being good stewards of what we have, putting in place systems that are capable, affordable, and sustainable to get the return on the investment that the american taxpayers have made in the effort. >> how far below $6 billion is it practical to go without giving up significant capability? >> oh, i don't -- you don't give up capability at all down to $6 billion. you can maintain a 352,000

force. currently con figured today and outyears with that money coming from multiple sources now, not just the united states, but i'm not sure it's going to be even that expensive. again, here's a great example. we've instituted a thing called afghan first that started 18 months ago. why are we buying boots from the united states for this hundreds of thousands of men who need boots. each boot of $170, a pair, by the time they got here and issued out. we asked ourselves why not help factories here in afghanistan and make boots indigenously through quality control standards. we started that 18 months ago. there's a boot factory where we get our boots at one-third the cost now. it's enormous savings there in itself. we did the same with uniforms. we bought them out of theater. again, we reached out and found people willing to stand up a business, we signed contracts

saying we would buy so much if they met certain quality standard of production. we brought in outside experts on the payroll, we pay who do nothing but quality control checks of the different now afghan-run and quality owned factories here in afghanistan doing our boots, clothing, sheets, pillow cases, our best estimate now is on an annual basis we save now $168 million per year, each year but the qiement now made in afghanistan to the same quality standard. i know -- i wear a pair of afghan boots, and have for seven months because i need them validated by mas they they are good. they started to diversify and they do other things for commercial commerce for afghan which is, you know, going to help it be a long term sustainable thing by producing

sandals and tennis shoes and other things like that for commercial use. today alone we saved over $650 million that we programmed to spend, but because of the afghan first initiatives no longer are required to spend -- yeah yeah, still buying same quality aquantity we wanted to get and use here for the afghan security force. >> npr -- can you talk about how many afghan army battalions you have now and hardship of them can -- how many of them can operate independently? >> let me think. right now today, independently, again, there's varying degrees of how they operate, but i'll tell you is that there's kinds out there requiring coalition

assistance and others require minimum assistance, and others you're asking about actually operate independently all by themselves. i'll go back and verify the exact numbers. i want to say today we're operating by themselves 1 about two independently without coalition support, but out of the -- there's another 124 operating very effectively with minimum support. as we say, we're responsible to bring units to initial capability, but it's the field forces that brings them to full operational capability, and it's the fielded experience, partnering out in the field that continues to help them evolve and develop, and so those out there today operating in that effective manner like i talked about will, with time, reach the point where they are able to operate independently. again, only because i've been

watching this on a monthly basis for two years, there is a nice upward climb, and i can tell you by december 2014, they will, in fact, have the ability to take the lead for security here in afghanistan, but it will still take some coalition support. there's still going to be coalition ablers that they will still rely upon from us to help provide everything from intelligence support to some air support and those type of activities we are not building in a very robust deliberate manner because we don't see that as a long term necessity here for their security force. >> out of total number, what's the total number of -- [inaudible] >> i'd have to double check. i want to say it's around 180 today that we have out there in the force.

>> thanks, general, with wired. you expressed concern this spring at the brookings institution that the attrition rate was 1.4% a month. last week it was testified it was 3% or reaching high as 3 president. what accounts for the increase? how can it be combated? second of all, there's abuses like rape, murder, and land grabs among the afghan local police. is it time to bring them into your training? >> well, first of all, attrition, and then we'll go to the human watch report. first thing with attrition is is it too high that we can't continue growing the force in making our growth objectives? the answer is no, it's not. with the current levels of attrition that exist today in afghanistan, we are, in fact, going to make the october 2010 -- 11 i mean, and the 2012

growth octoberives of 305,000. i'm comfortable that will happen. the attrition of 1.4% is the goal we set. that's been agreed upon that we want to bring both the police and army down to to make it, again, sustainable in the out years. the police have attrition of 1.4%. they are there. there's elements lower that than that. the one with the most remarkable process is the afghan civil order police. again, when we stood up the command, there's 120% attrition, in other words, negative flow of personnel in that organization. this past month were at 30% attrition on an annualized basis. significant over the last two years from 120% down to 30%, but, again, that needs to even go lower. you want it down to about, you know, 16%-18% annually, 1.4% a

month so it is sustainable in the out years, and so incop is the one area, and there's people, trainers coming in specifically, about 120 of them here by this fall that are coming in that are going to partner with the afghan units where there's not a lot of that out there today to continue helping them develop and professionalize. tremendous downward already. there's not an issue there. it's in the army that everybody's continuing to watch the attrition very carefully. it's been steadily out there over the last year, have not seen the decline, but, again, you know, as i talked to the afghan leadership, the thing we talk about is it's really about leadership and having the right leaders out there taking care of solders, ensure the pay, get their leave, the live-in conditions are appropriate and the food is right. that's the key to really all the different attrition studies we've done over two years and we see time and time again. we have a bring gade down in

kandahar whose attrition is 1.2%. now, when you go down there, he will tell you those are 89 things they've done. tremendous leader focus, real instance on taking care of their soldiers and they continue to serve. think about it, they are 100% volunteers coming in at 8,000 a month. we turn away, you know a thousand-plus every month that we don't allow entry into the training base. one because they don't immediate the standards, but we are selective because the base requires so many a month now to meet the atives and continue on the path we are on. we watch it carefully and recognize we had an army at 95,000 two years ago and now it's about 170,000, almost doubled in two years, and it's going to grow another 1250 #*

125 this -- 125 this year. we are working towards next october to have that really start set ming -- settling down and see the attrition dropping towards december of 2014 with the leaders out there and the growth has occur the. what i tell you on the human rights watch report, although i have not personally set and read the report, i've heard some of the things about it. what i'll tell you is what we've done is because of the report new efforts made on human rights training out there. look at the afghan national police, and i know you're talking local police, but in the overall police itself, it was an eight-week program of instruction country wide by all nations, and we added if in alone 18 more hours of human rights training because we recognize it's something to

continually reenforce and exercise in a country experiencing 30 years of civil war at this point. the local police think that the element that has a responsibility to do that training and oversight, the special operations element, understands that this is something that needs to be further reenforced itself. we take it seriously and alleged reports out there, and they will get at it, but they do know, and we have been helping them as we have been with other development programs of instruction that can get at that that's internationally recognized and certified. again, a key to this is just the partnering out there. whenever you find coalition forces adequate numbers partner with coalition partners, you know, you really find that thing happening because, you know, we're instilling into them through our own actions and daily contact the appropriate

kind of behavior. >> you're not going to take on alp training? >> well, we have not at this point. obviously, if there's, as we all continue moving forwards over here, if there is a request for us to obviously help and become more engaged in that, we obviously would, but at this point, i think the special forces element that has the respondent for that understands and sees what that report says. again, like i said, we take this very seriously, and i know that they have been briefed and doing modifications in doing the training as they move forward from here. the thing we have helped with is getting with the minister of interior because they have the oversight responsibility for the local police, and the thing we've been doing is retraining -- they have three people teams out in the districts that are from the

minister of interior that we have the oversight for. we've been going back out and doing retraining with them so that they know better what they should be looking for and observing in the alp units in the districts. >> sorry. hi, general. thank you for doing this briefing. i wanted you to assess the intelligence gathering capability of the afghan forces particularly in light of the incidents in kabul, and what kinds of things do you consider doing to improve the intelligence gathering? >> yeah, well, fist of all, let me say, there's a tremendous amount of, you know, attacks that have been planned, that have been interdicted by the afghan intell services whether it's the national director of

services or other intell elements out there. we do have a program that we're involved with in teaching human intell collection that's robust and operating outside in the country down in the south, east, and now in kabul too that we're involved with for human intelligence collection and trying to develop networks of information that would enable them to detour some of these things, and part of that has been very, very successful. there's more attacks planned and executed that are disrupted and capturing of people being picked up that than are able to actually able to execute because of the efforts so you don't hear about those things, but they are going on at this time. there's an intell school we stood up this past year too. we are developing intelligence

units that are now going out into the army formations, but, again, that's only in the last six months that we've been putting those out into the formations, so that's fairly new, too. the other part we've been really working hard is cross-sharing between the different ministries, not just the national director of nds themselves, but also between the moi and mod which has not been there really in the past, and so that's starting to help, too. i'll tell you the last part that we spend a tremendous amount of time is on biometrics, and they can rapidly cross reference when they are either bringing people through a vetting process for a particular job or trying to work their way into the army or the police or, in fact, they pick somebody up and they immediately take their by yo metrickings and match you back to the data base

and compare you to whatever is in the data base and cross sharing with u.s. intelligence resources too, so there is intell efforts going on. it's deliberate. i think it's liquid for what they need in afghanistan at this time, but, again, we stay mostly just within the defense and the interior and don't get involved in the national intell system itself. other elements work with them. >> two more questions. >> mine's quick. i just wanted to ask one clarification on tom's question earlier when you mentioned there are two independent can ax. just to be clear, that means they are operating without any logistical or medical support from the coalition; is that correct? also, tell us roughly where they are operating and in what part of the country?

>> as far as where they are, i'll go back to george with that information. i monitor the training aspects. i collect that data just so that we're aware and have foodback to modify and adjust the programs to better produce forces in the future, so i'll come back specifically and make sure george gets that, but when i say independently, i don't want to mislead anybody. doesn't mean they have absolute 1ly no coalition support. you know, we say that in 2014, december 2014 when the afghans take the lead for security here in afghanistan, there will still be coalition enablers here and the same is true today for the two units that are "operating independently," and we have not yet fully developed their logistic system, maintenance system or medical systems. those are areas we're still focused and working on. we have a dlinlt plan to get at that. this is the year where we take

that on. we have about an additional 800 people, trainers coming in bound to us at the same time you hear about reductions in force and theater here on the combat side and do uplift of people of 800 people by next march to get the specialty skills now that really are very, very important that, you know, we have two or three years to get developed, in place, partnered with so they are not much more able to operate without our support as we near 2014, but today we have not developed their systems to enable them to do that yet. >> i'd like to go back to the question of long term financial support for the afghan security forces. did i hear you earlier you have long term outyear projections suggesting you need $6 billion a year to support them.

how much lower can you go before you think you would begin to jeopardize the capability that's needed? >> well, $6 billion 1 the max in the out years that the force we're currently building. once it's fielded and operatal would neon for long term sustainment cost collectively from the international media from the united states and the afghans themselves, but, you know, there's a lot of variables out there. we're assuming right now when we say that number that general cost figure that's with nothing changing from what it is today. we, in fact, do expect the level of insurgency to go down and find more efficiencies in how we do things and operate that -- further cut long term costs, so, you know, again, we do a tremendous amount of modeling running variables in this to

look at, you know, the high and low, always with the two things that, you know, we've been directed by osd1 don't sacrifice capabilities and still make sure they have the same capacity and capability they have today as we do this, and so, you know, we work close with the afghans on this looking at long term costs, but, again, the variables are okay, the level of insurgency has been such a level that we don't need 352, but a smaller number than that, 50 or 100,000 less. that starts to greatly reduce the overall costs. some of the things, again, just fully implementing now that show longer term savings. you know, we for whatever reason, we are putting commissioners in most of the places we were building leer in afghanistan two years ago. you know, today, we don't do that at all. you know, we've recognized what's right for afghanistan, what's sustainable and affordable by them in the long term. each t