they are interactive. people can learn come and kid can learn about government. government doesn't have to be a bad word. >> be sure to join july 21 in the 22nd feature the visit to alaska. watch a alaska weekend on c-span, c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> assistant secretary of state for south and central asian affairs testified before the house floor about policy in afghanistan. topics include the taliban, how u.s. resources were being spent and the length of time the u.s. may be in the region. this is 90 minutes.

this hearing on the u.s. policies in afghanistan will come to order. afghanistan has been at war since 1979. human suffering has been horrendous. threats to security have followed. as a result, the u.s. has had no choice but to engage in afghanistan. first we helped counter the brutal soviet invasion and then we helped dislodge the taliban and combat al qaeda after the september 11 attacks. afghanistan has been called america's longest war. thousands of americans have lost their lives. we have spent hundreds of billions. this investment aims to achieve a stable afghanistan that doesn't harbor international

terrorists. should the government failed to the vacuum surel,the vacuum sure filled. isis and the ayatollah would be among those who would benefit. so today we will ask where should we go from here. we currently have the u.s. troops in afghanistan and this is dramatically down from the high enough 100,000 in 2011. their current focus is training afghan security forces and counterterrorism, and there has been some success. fortunately many allies are still with us, that afghans need the ability and the will to fight for their own country. last week there was a brief cease-fire and renewed afghan government outreach to the total ban, which the administration endorsed. yet they continue the fight and have rejected all offers to

enter into negotiations with the internationally recognized and backed afghan government. this conflict doesn't need a sustainable resolution of some sort that is going to fall apart. what it needs is a well thought through sustainable situation that will hold for the people of afghanistan and that leads to a credible, competent afghan government. the administration moved these things in the right direction by scrapping restrictive rules of engagement that have hamstrung u.s. forces. it dropped a political engagement established by the previous administration. it's putting more pressure on pakistan which aids and that's the taliban and other geologist

groups, and caliban finances were being targeted. these are good steps but it's unclear if they will change the fundamentals that frustrated an acceptable resolution for so long. after all these years, what do we know about the tablet and? how fragmented is it and can it be brought into a durable settlement cracks with packet, act against him and iran engage with the taliban and sabotage any settlement cracks we should be proud of our many contributions to the development in afghanistan including dramatically expanding education and that the cause of winning despite rampant corruption. i've met with some of the women. the girls do now go to schools that was prohibited of course under the taliban. i've talked to teachers who had

the soles of their feet lashed when they were taught teaching girls. the stories of these girls are incredibly inspiring. the stories of women who are now part of the government in afghanistan are inspiring. but frankly in other ways we have been treading water. while leaving today would do more harm than good come out of substantial commitment to afghanistan cannot be open-end open-ended. we need to see more progress. and with that, if we have our ranking member wh who isn't wits yet but he will make his statement after your opening statement, so this morning i am pleased to welcome alice wells secretary of state for south and central asia affairs to the committee. ambassador alice wells has been

serving as the assistant secretary of state for south and central asian affairs since june of 2017. she is a foreign service officer and has previously served as the united states ambassado ambassae kingdom of jordan. she's held numerous positions in the department of state and has extensive experience in south and central asia and we very much appreciate her being with us today. without objection, the witnesses .-full-stop the statement is going to be made a part of the record and members will have five calendar days to submit any statements or questions or extraneous material for the record. i would ask ambassador wilson should summarize her remarks and afterwards we will go to questions. thank you. >> chairman and ranking member thank you for inviting me to appear to discuss the administrations strategy in afghanistan. this is a timely hearing just last week the first in 17 years

brought peace to afghanistan during the period and like many americans i was struck by the images of afghan soldiers in the tablet and praying together side by side. if afghan troops and taliban soldiers can pray together, then the afghan people have every reason to believe that their leaders can come together and negotiate an end to this war hoping to jumpstart an afghan peace process is among the secretary's highest priority's and has been my primary focus is assuming responsibility for this account one year ago. the president's south asia strategy announced last august is making a difference. its conditions-based approach has signaled to the tablet and that they cannot win on the battlefield and has provided the president with renewed confidence to pursue a negotiated political settlement. his february 2018 invitation for the taliban to enter into a peace process without precondition was unprecedented,

equally unprecedented was the announcement of a temporary cease-fire for the week surrounding the holidays. the national outpouring of relief and joy last weekend was unlike anything afghanistan has seen. they wandered the streets of the city at southeast with soldiers. they sampled treats of afghan citizens and worshiped alongside of those they have been exchanging fire with just a few days earlier. for many, caliban and pro-government unlike was an exhilarating first pace of the peace pipe like. the united states has made clear that we are prepared to support, facilitate and participate in the direct negotiations between direct negotiations between the afghan government and the taliban. we will support all afghan stakeholders as they worke worko reach a mutually agreeable negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and ensures afghanistan is never again used as a safe haven for terrorist groups. our desired outcomes for any

peace process are clear and have not changed. the taliban must renounce violence can break ties with al qaeda and accept the afghan constitution including its protections for women and minorities. the strategy is having an impact on the battlefield with tactical level support from the military advisors the afghan security forces have slowed the taliban momentum from improved the support of a generational shift in leadership and a doubling of the size of the special forces are creating conditions for the political process to achieve a lasting peace. alongside the military campaign we are working with our partners especially in the gulf to help strangle the tablet and illicit revenue from foreign services and narcotics trafficking. we are supporting the afghan government outreach to the global muslim community to delegitimize the religion underpinnings of the taliban violent campaign and we are also

calling on afghanistan neighbors especially pakistan to take additional steps and perfect peace despite positive indicators is not yet seen them take the sustained or decisive steps that we believe it should pursue including arresting or expelling taliban elements who will not come to the negotiating table. we are also encouraging the afghan government reforms that have been in the insurgency of support upcoming afghan elections for the parliament in october and for the president in early 2019 must be timely, transparent and credible. we are providing targeted assistance to the electoral institutions to assist the voter registration an and reducing the total fraud. more than 6 million afghans have registered to vote and more than 5,000 candidates will be standing for public office. the economic reforms afghanistan still ranks near the bottom in transparency and international rankings. there've been some institutional

progress including the establishment of the justice center, but the progress has been slow. however, there've been bright spots as well over the last year the government has improved its fiscal performance and its funding of greater share of the budget. the share of the donors' from about 50% in 2012 to 25% today. the afghan people who face a deadly toll of this every day understand the need for peace and so too do the thousands of u.s. personnel working to implement the administration strategy. as i noted earlier the key question remains well the taliban join a peace process to make the compromises necessary to end the war we are prepared to test this proposition and mr. chairman, mr. ranking member thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. congress support is crucial to the process and i look forward to addressing your questions. >> thank you, ambassador.

we know go to mr. engel of new york the ranking member of the committee. >> think you mr. chairman and thank you for calling this hearing. ambassador, thank you for your time and service. our policy obviously toward afghanistan is critical. 15,000 american troops on the ground there fighting america's longest war and we provide millions of assistance every year. in the 17 years since first deployed to afghanistan after september 11 the troops and allies have performed heroical heroically. there've been significant progress on the count of the funding has to al qaeda and was estimated as many as 5,000 the number of fighters in afghanistan is now thought to be in the low hundreds unfortunately those are not comfortable to the fight against the caliban which most experts consider a stalemate. the trump administration announced its approach to dealing with a stalemate nearly a year ago for a new strategy in

afghanistan for south asia. it's meant to be a so-called conditions-based approach that emphasizes fighting to win and downplays nationbuilding ended with a stronger lining up testing and larger role for india, eliminates timetables and expense targeting authorities for u.s. forces and commits to sending additional troops. in sum, the administration seems to be planning to escalate the war in order to break the stalemate forcing the tablet into a negotiating table, but what happens if it isn't broken and in april 2018 reports of the special inspector general report said reconstruction, what we call sigar out of the government control influence is 56%, but the lowest level recorded. so we need to be honest, even with the best military in the world it is impossible to kill every member of the taliban. the president's talk even members of the administration

acknowledged the war in afghanistan will not be won on the battlefield. the president needs a strategy based on the facts as they are and about as he wishes them to be, so i think all the countries that have committed troops to fight in afghanistan for so many years, but i worry that an attack on nato and our allies coming from the president, we are undermining the very alliance that binds the coalition fighting for the future of afghanistan and our security. ..

they had an interest in talking with united states. the u.s. wasn't prepared to talk right now. american interest are best served by negotiating directly with the taliban. they claim they would separate themselves from international terrorism. there's a growing threat of aces offshoot in afghanistan. so far we've squandered the opportunity and heard nothing about how we plan to seize on the cease-fire and that's no real surprise because as i have been fighting for many months now the administration doesn't prioritize diplomacy.

state department offers. [inaudible] found that they lost both staff expertise as result of the reckless hollowing out of the state department. we will be interested in hearing on how the administration plans to reconstitute this expertise. we cannot miss the next diplomatic opportunity because we don't have diplomats up for the job. diplomacy is going to be at the center of solving this challenge. after many years of war is clear there is no military solution in the fighting in afghanistan but that doesn't foreclose a path to peace or conveyance security interests. now is the time to make peace and security our number one goal and implement a strategy that will help us achieve it. we own it to the women and men

who serve our country in uniform and those who gave the ultimate sacrifice and to those who perished on september 11, 2001. i look forward to your testimony. i know you've started and were very happy to have you here. i think you again mr. chairman and i yield back. >> thank you mr. ingle. >> investor wells, i think the key question here, in terms of the willingness of factions in the taliban or the overall organization to reach some settlement goes to their intentions. there have been cease-fires, but yesterday there were 30 afghans killed by taliban soldiers when they lifted the cease-fire. let me ask you, in your judgment, is the taliban interested in a political settlement? what do circumstances tell

you, and how would we get there? we saw them offer a series of moves the prisoner releases, medical aid for wounded soldiers, this latest cease-fire and fraternization that presumably might bring down the tensions, and yet here was the attack yesterday. give me your view on this. >> the taliban long say they do support political or negotiations, but only with the united states but not with the sovereign government of afghanistan. i think what we learn from the cease-fire was just how much the foot soldiers and the commanders inside of afghanistan do desire peace. the celebration was spontaneous and it was countrywide. i think where we are right now as the taliban leadership, many of whom enjoy sanctuary

outside the country and don't feel the pressures of day-to-day war have not yet been convinced to come to the negotiating table despite what has been an extremely forward leaning offer of peace put forward by the president in february. that peace offer which was unconditioned without any conditions attached to it and included the offer of considering constitutional amendments to ensure that the taliban views were better reflected in the institutions and structure of the government of the ye afghanistan, that has been endorsed by the international community. our strategy right now has to be focused on increasing the pressure that the taliban feel to take up that offer of negotiation. >> one of the difficulties in all of this, and getting an organization like that to the table is the financing for the organization that makes cash

ready at hand every time they're moving narcotics. i guess one of the great frustrations is for the past 15 years, the u.s. government has been a billion dollars focus on trying to shut that down. today it is still the biggest cash crop in afghanistan. what, in theory, could be done to try to diminish that narcotics trade and all that you legality that it drives as well as support for the taliban from a financial standpoint? >> i agree the narcotics account for about 60% of the taliban budget but more than that they fuel a criminal network and either way at the institution state that they also cause. what we've done partly as a problem of security. 85% roman areas that are

controlled or contested by the taliban. a key element in combating the taliban finances is continuing to improve on the battlefield which we are starting to see a decline in the momentum as a result of the strategy and the new authority and new approach that has been adopted underneath that strategy. were also building the institutional capacity of the afghan government to prosecute and go after the narco criminal and that has been through working with counter narcotics, building special investigative unit, the national investigation units, working with president donnie in support of a national drug action plan, and there has been some successes. rather than going after individual farmers, we focused on drug labs. last year we had 84 joint rates. we interdicted about $360 million worth of drugs for there's now a counter narcotics justice center which

is prosecuting these narcotics cases. they have a 99% conviction record. security is a key part, the institutional capacity is important and as is the fact that over the last 16 years we've built up cadre so that the undertaking now resides in these institutions. >> one of the other things that have to be a prerequisite is within the government of afghanistan, that government has to credibly combat corruption and that has been a long-standing problem. we have a special investigator general for afghanistan reconstruction where we spent 55 million. year just to make sure our funds are misused. my time has expired and i'll go to mr. ingle but i would suggest that tripling down in terms of pressure we apply on

the government there to have transparency and to and those practices is the only sure way to rally confidence on the part of the afghan population and international community. we go to mr. ingle. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you master. let me say this. i am glad you support negotiations with the taliban, but as far as i'm concerned it only adds to the mix signals we are hearing from the administration. when you and secretary pompeo and general muller say we should negotiate, i'm not sure if you're speaking for yourself for the white house. the way i see it if we can talk to kim jong-un we can certainly talk to the taliban. we know the taliban and is interested in direct talks with the u.s. so why won't the administration accept the offer if only as a bridge to broader talks that would

eventually include the afghan government and. >> thank you, sir. the strategy is premised on achieving a pathway to a dignified political time. that is victory under the south asian strategy and we have worked diplomatically in support of the military campaign to build an international consensus behind a piece proposal that has been put forward by president donnie and have undertaken various lines of effort to put pressure on the taliban to bring them to the table. the taliban has had a de facto office for many years and there has been no lack of talking up other countries talking of the taliban hearing from international community and from the afghan government, this desire to begin negotiating a political process. so, the offers on the table. i think we been very clear

about how we see ourselves playing a role in a negotiation both as participants in supporting the process, we are party to this conflict, but the taliban leadership has to understand that the very nature of the settlement, when you talk about forms of government and rights of individuals under the constitution, prisoner release and con confidence building issues, these are issues that have to be negotiated with afghans, and knocked over the heads of afghans so we will play our role but the taliban, if we recognize them as part of the legitimate clinical fabric of afghanistan, they have to recognize that the afghan government and the many communities of afghanistan are also part of that legitimate fabric, political fabric of afghanistan. let me ask you this question. in your testimony you state that we have a condition space strategy in south asia, but those conditions however have never been spelled out. what conditions are you referring to specifically.

>> the conditions we are seeking to achieve in afghanistan are sensation of violence, rejection of terrorism and respect the constitution. this is all under the umbrella of not allowing afghanistan to ever again become a safe haven for terrorists that are planning to attack the united states or its allies. i think what significant in those conditions is that they're not preconditions. we have not thought to impose any obstacles to the beginning of a negotiation between the taliban and afghan government. what we want to see is what comes out of that process. >> thank you. let me ask you this, we have 40 countries contributing troops for nato support a mission in afghanistan for the operation remains one of the most enduring examples of how we can work with our allies, germany is the second largest contributor after the united states.

the president seems to indicate that he doesn't agree with or understand the values of alliances of a multilateral partnership such as how the nato mission in afghanistan continues to serve the interest of the united states. so, i'm concerned about the repeated remarks by the president denigrating the alliance. just one ask a simple question, do you agree that the u.s. is best served by continuing to work with allies and partners around the world? obviously the answer would be that yes but i'd like to hear that as the president continues to attack the very countries fighting with us and fighting on our side. how much strained cooperation with our allies made it harder to implement ours asia strategy. >> having a united international force and diplomatic effort is essential to the campaign to stabilize afghanistan and were deeply grateful for the support of our nato, allies and partners

in the resolute support mission. i think you see it and what we've been able to do to spread the burden which is a key goal of the administration in order to ensure that we are all playing a part in playing a fair part in contributions to afghan stability. i think it's a telling statistic that since 2012 our contribution has gone from 50% to 25%. i think we want to continue in that direction to make sure we and our partners are all pulling in the same direction with the same intensity. >> my time is up. thank you. >> we go to eliana in florida. >> thank you so much. thank you ranking member. it's a pleasure to see you again. when the president first announced our strategy in afghanistan last year, the administration told congress it would seek a coordinated

effort to get the taliban to the table as we've been discussing, using layers of diplomatic efforts. this left open the possibility of including russia and it ran. if you can elaborate on what extent you think russia and iran are supporting the taliban, and if they are, how does that impact our layered diplomatic approach? i also wanted to follow up on pakistan. i know they suspended military aid to pakistan as part of the strategy to get pakistan to change how it does business when it comes to the taliban and providing safe harbors. you testified that pakistan is on notice that we expected unequivocal cooperation, ending sanctuaries, but also, we haven't really seen pakistan do the sustained or decisive steps that we would've expected when the new

strategy was announced. you have any evidence that pakistan has taken steps to cut off the flow of arms or support for the taliban, and have we in the u.s. allowed for any waivers or made any exceptions to military assistance to pakistan since the suspension of the aid was announced. thank you. we are concerned when we see reports of countries that are seeking to hedge their bets in afghanistan typically by viewing the taliban as a legitimate force inviting isis. our strong view is that the only way to defeat terrorism to bring peace to afghanistan is to strengthen the afghan government and strengthen the government ability to fight terrorists. that said, both countries like russia and iran do have an important role to play in the future stabilization of afghanistan. their neighbors are going to

have to support any peace process that emerges between the afghan and italian and that's why we portray hard and a variety of diplomatic formats to ensure that the region is part of this process informed by the process and informed by the principles of peace have been put forward by president connie. next week i'll be going to an international contact group meeting of over 30 countries that will be gathering including russia and iran to reinforce our support for the efforts of president connie and our support for peace in the region. we will continue those diplomatic efforts. pakistan has a particularly crucial role to play as the general testified. without pakistan's active support, it's going to be much more challenging to achieve our objective under the south asia strategy. we would like to see pakistan arrest, expel or bring to the negotiating table taliban

leadership. today, well we've seen some positive steps, our assessment has been that we've not seen the sustained and decisive action that is really required to ensure that the taliban take this peace process seriously. >> thank you. one little nugget just to leave you with. the cobble contract they said we would take a hundred initiatives and i hope that in the question-and-answer you can give us an update, i haven't heard too much about the reforms. we have a minute, maybe you can tell us the benchmarks that the president has and how we tend to use those as commitments for preconditions, et cetera. >> the afghan government on its own volition established the afghanistan compact credit has over 200 metrics to measure performance,

anticorruption in the areas of security, governance, economic performance and reconciliation efforts. we meet quarterly with president donnie to review progress under those metrics, again this is an afghan government initiative and not something that we have put forward as part of our conditionality. >> do you think they are making progress. >> we do and we see serious efforts, there's areas where we make progress faster and areas when there's less progress we been able to have the kinds of top level conversations to keep the momentum behind reform. >> thank you. we go now to mr. brad sherman of california. >> is good to see you secretary and investor. it raises the question, when does the administration going to a point a permanent assistant secretary for south and central asia? has the have indicated that?

>> secretary pompeo, when he testified, he indicated he would be moving soon to make appointments including. >> did he criticize or apologize for the fact that throughout the tenure of his predecessor no one had been nominated to a position as important as the one you are acting in. >> i'm very grateful that both secretary tillerson and pompeo have been given full grit to undertake this job. >> but still the word acting in front of your title undercuts what you do, the uncertainty of whether you keep doing it if the administration had had the wisdom to simply give you the position, i wouldn't be asking this question. it's our understanding that 30 personnel positions were caught between the south-central asia office and the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan.

is there any chance those cuts will be restored, and are they needed. >> some of the cuts were the result of two bureaus being merged. when you overlap to bureaus, some of the administrative staff, the front office staff, we were able to take advantage of efficiencies from the integration part we have discovered decided to expand our staff focused on reconciliation. the team is here and in the embassy in kabul. we benefit from the approach that the experts we have are all part of this one team as we look for ways to move peace process forward. >> does the united states, and as india and pakistan recognized the border between afghanistan and pakistan? >> afghanistan has not recognized.

>> i know afghanistan hasn't but what about pakistan and the united states. to those three countries recognize the nam line? >> it serves as the international boundary and recognizes sensitivities associated with it. >> that is how we approach it, yes. >> is their quotation there. >> so it's just as much an international border. >> we believe border management is going to be best done when you have countries working together. >> what about india. does india recognize that as the international border. >> act actually don't know. >> i hope you'd respond to that because india is a poor country. it does provide foreign aid to a limited degree. there are trying needs that are even closer to india than afghanistan, and namely miramar, burma, sri lanka, but

india is instead providing substantial aid in afghanistan. is there any chance, what degree of harm does that caused by making the pakistanis nervous and causing them to support the wrong element in afghanistan or at least not to help us go after the wrong elements? to what extent is india's generosity to people of afghanistan causing a problem with pakistan? >> we see india support is very important. they are responsible aid provider. they help pledged assistance through 2020. the afghan government welcomes the assistance and welcome senses seeks a strategic partnership with india. when it comes to packets and tensions and concerns. >> let me interrupt you but afghanistan once a strategic

partnership with india. >> yes. >> afghanistan claims a huge chunk of pakistani tour terry and were surprised that pakistan, although you want a minute, and they want a minute, is working against our interest for a strong united afghanistan which longs to be an effective strategic partner of india. >> we welcomed the recent afghan pakistan discussions to deal with these issues that you raise, including management of the border. there's been agreement to establish liaison officers and collaborate more effectively on the border. >> i'm sure there's such collaboration and substantial support for pakistan, for bad elements in afghanistan. you have a very tough job. the only tougher job would be to come to any of our districts and explain why we haven't destroyed the poppy fields become bet afghanistan is a battlefield but so are the towns and cities.

>> thank you for convening this important hearing. thank you for your leadership and for your cautiously optimistic take on the prospects for peace. it is encouraging but of course the way forward is through its obstacles and you know better than anyone. thank you for giving us the insight that there was an exhilarating first taste of what peace might look like. i think that offers more encouragement that this can happen. i would like to ask him if i could, and the discerning the intent of the taliban leadership, tell them, as you know them as we all know within the last few hours attacked an afghan base and killed 30 afghan soldiers. perhaps eight or more were

wounded and there's always a concern that a hostile power will use the prospects of peace or the cover of peace to cover their violence but i wonder how that has factored into this thinking. on eight conditionality which you mentioned a moment ago, entities of the government of afghanistan, particularly the local police and national police on the front line of battling the taliban, they're known to have recruited children to serve as combatants or slaves. sex slaves. a 10-year-old boy had been publicly honored by the police force for his assistance against the taliban. the child soldiers prevention act requires the united states

to cease military aid where they are allowing children to be trafficked. i wondered if you could convey to us how seriously we are raising that issue with the afghan government and what steps if any did the government of afghanistan take into thousand 17 and 2018 to cease using child soldiers in its forces. >> thank you. i think when it comes to the taliban and resuming violence after the cease-fire, this is going to be a critical time to underscore the dispute within the muslim world over the reason why they are fighting this war. we have seen some very important developments. pakistan issued over a thousand members of their religious establishment, condemning suicide bombing and some of the tactics of the taliban. the indonesians gathered afghan and pakistan and

reiterated this condemnation and called for peace and reconciliation. the afghan, over 2700 gathered in favor of peace against suicide bombing, in favor of peace negotiations. they are gathering in the next two weeks to also have a conversation that this is, i think it's a real moment of changing of opinions in the islamic world about what is going on in afghanistan and taking greater ownership and trying to frame that this is the time to negotiate for the taliban with the next form of government of afghanistan. we will continue to encourage these developments and put as much pressure as we can on the taliban through all of the various lines of effort that now is a moment to see the opportunity of. at the same time, you are so right that the reforms of the government take are critical.

when it comes to children sex slaves, we worked with the afghan government, that practice is now criminalized in the penal code and other regulatory measures. we do extensive vetting for all of our military assistance and who we work with in afghanistan to ensure that we are not supporting afghan officers engaged in that behavior with a sense of human rights training that we provide and through usaid we've done vocational rehabilitation and 6000 of these victims of this sex slaves practice. on child folgers, same commitment by the afghan government has been criminalized. there are active measures to ensure children are not recruited including 22 centers around the country that interdict when they see efforts for children to be inducted into the service. it's very much on our agenda. >> thank you very much.

>> thank you for coming. we appreciate having you here today. i have an observation i would like to ask a question. i'm very hopeful we do have a prospect for peace in afghanistan. i look at the columbia peace pact and i see what has done to the drug growth in that country. i just want to make sure that when we talk about peace we do take into consideration this is a very lucrative business in afghanistan. i don't know if we want to continue saying that it's okay for them to continue growing this opium growth. within the growth in columbia and i hope if we do have peace in afghanistan that we focus on that because i would hate to have peace and have such a growth in the drug growing.

my question is we have all a growing concern that afghan politics and society is becoming increasingly fragmented. it's alongside ethnic and ideological lines. what impact do you think that will have four political stability in that country? >> thank you. on the issue of narcotics, i agree this is not just an issue that involves the taliban. this is an issue that is a perversion throughout all of afghan society. the criminal networks and their ability to corrupt the institutions of the state and society. it's something that we take very seriously. we are limited right now because of the security situation and where the opioid

is grown. rather than undertake eradication which is not supported by the afghan government, it's too go to step up. through targeting of the drug network, to get to that level of individuals who are benefiting more and a greater part of the drug trade. they continue the institutional development to respond to the narcotics threat. i agree we learn from the example of the columbia peace process and how hard it is. >> i just want to make sure it doesn't go the other way for the sake of peace. >> i think you can look at it two ways. it showed incredible unity that still exists in afghanistan.

the fact that combatants and pro-government supporters gather together tens of thousands of people praying together in places like kandahar where it's the heartland of the taliban, i think it's hope that the basic in sinews are there. we've seen the government of national unity had to deal with issues of inclusivity and trying to ensure that all facets of afghan society are represented in government, and i think they will be a great deal of importance attached to the credibility and the conduct of the elections are coming up. elections have always been a sensitive event in afghanistan and it's one that we are supporting very carefully and supporting the independent election commission to ensure that is much can be done to reduce the chances for industrial scale corruption

and to increase the chances that voters across afghanistan and both female and male will be able to participate. >> are the russians being obstructionist? i read an article. [inaudible] >> the russians have been very unhelpful in accusing him of falsely accusing the united states and undertaking propaganda campaigns to suggest that somehow we've introduced isis into afghanistan and seek to artificially keep the terrorist battles going. and so, we believe that russia has an important role to play in being a supporter of peace in afghanistan. they certainly benefit from a stable. >> we've seen, russia denies that, but certainly we see russia adopting a posture that the taliban are a legitimate work against isis.

we do not buy that as a justification of engagement with the taliban. >> thank you very much. >> mr. dana rohrbacher of california. >> thank you very much. i'm sorry that i don't join in your optimism in watching people pray together, the next thing we know, the next step would be sitting around the campfire singing come by, as if that has anything to do with creating peace. afghanistan is a society that is based on tribalism and ethnicity and our greatest and what has been reconfirmed today is that we continue down the road of trying to remake afghanistan into a democratic system. that's why we are feeling. that's why that will not succeed. it's totally inconsistent with

the national character. we did this from the very beginning over my objection many times trying to create, we created the most centralized constitution of almost any country in the world and over people who are the most decentralized people in the world. then we are surprised when it doesn't work and people are upset and join military units. let me ask you, are they still the major element, if not the dominant element of the taliban? >> yes. >> and so, now we have the questions and people understand they are in afghanistan and half are in pakistan. let me just say that we have to understand that and deal with that over never going to

have peace. we made a mistake in the beginning trying to re-create the centralized government and then we permitted crooks and criminals to take over that government and loot the country of billions of dollars and we expect the afghans to say now we can have a democratic process. let me just note also, the major opioid production areas in that country is in these areas, is it not. >> it's dominated in those areas. >> right, and we have done nothing. when i say we've gone through a lot of pr type of things that make it look like were doing something, if we wanted to eliminate the poppy production in afghanistan, we could do it within a week and we have technological

capabilities and we have not done that and so we have thus permitted the taliban to have a major source of billions of dollars of input which permits them to have the bullets and the guns that are necessary to have a terrorist organization and the radical islamic type of regime their trying to build. do you know the status for those were watching and reading this, we realize that what really worked in afghanistan after 911 was when we allied ourselves with the anti- taliban forces that were basically made up of backs and touchy's. the leader of the group was general told storm. he's a man who actually organized our effort to drive the taliban out of power in the first place. where's the journal today?

>> turkey. >> and he is in turkey because there was major assassination attempt against them. are they motivated by caliban or people in the afghan government that we are supporting? >> my understanding is that he's in turkey for health reasons but when he does return to afghanistan there are legal processes that have been brought against him and some of his security officials for the sodomy of political figures that had been in the custody of the general. >> you can bet that the people who hate us and hate the man who helped us drive the taliban out our willing to say anything about him, and yes, he is outside afghanistan for health reasons because they tried to murder him and 50 of his bodyguards were killed by

the time he had ten others escape from an ambush that was not a taliban ambush. people, we are in a murky situation here. the pakistanis, who we have been treating with kid gloves are clearly a pro- terrorist element and a pro- taliban element in this whole fight, and until we start realizing this, all these things about praying together for all the reforms are talking about in the democratic process will mean nothing and more americans will die. we have to get real or we will lose for good. thank you very much. >> comes while the of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. think ambassador for being here today. i have to admit, i'm very frustrated in this process of trying to discover what the civilian strategy of the united states of america in afghanistan is. i've only been here for a

short time but i've had the opportunity to affect terry tillerson about the spread i've had the opportunity to affect return pompeo. i spoke with you on the phone, what is our civilian strategy. i want to determine, are you referring to the $3.7 billion. year that was agreed to at the brussels conference in which america is putting up a billion dollars. year of that money? >> yes. >> so that was done in 2016 under the previous a ministration. that commitment still stands from the brussels conference in 2016. >> our levels are lower than that 1 billion-dollar figure but in general that's guiding the approach by us and the international community.

>> is the number being spent or is it lower. >> i would have to get a breakdown of what's actually come through. >> what about slavin trying to get for a long time. i've been trying to get that breakdown of what the international commitment for civilian efforts is specifically what the number is. i had to get this from outside the u.s. government to determine what this number was. i'd also like to know and i'll send you a follow-up letter, i'd like to know what are we spending our money on and what is the international community spending its money on. $3.7billion a year, but what are the specific programs that is being spent on. we had a lot about poppy eradication and a whole bunch of different things but i'd like to know specifically how much money is being spent by the department of state, usaid, the d.o.j. or the da

specifically. i want to know what are we spending our money on and to what effort because i don't feel we have a comprehensive strategy. like we have a list of a lot of good work done by good people were working very hard but i don't see it as being a strategy. i think the military strategy is clear and we are clearing and holding property and our effort to transition and redevelop the areas, i don't know what that effort is. i'm very frustrated because the vessels question many times and i'd like to get specifics about how much money we're spending and what programs were spending that money on. could you, off the top of your head give me a rough idea of the billion dollars a year, what percentages are being spent on different efforts. how much is being spent on infrastructure.

how much is being spent on poppy eradication and schools or sewers or teaching prosecutors to be prosecutors? can you give us a rough idea? >> i'm happy to provide and talk to my usaid colleagues to provide a more detailed letter to you with a breakdown of assistance. i'm sure you've heard the overall principle the drive to the development security are trying to increase the private sector lead and export led growth and to consolidate the social gains in health education and women's empowerment. outside of usaid we have funds that are providing the training or the counter narcotics and law-enforcement capacity. we have the bureau of counterterrorism providing specific assistant programs including kabul and other urban areas. it's a complicated topic.

the numbers are confusing and we can provide a very detailed letter with the breakdown. >> that will be very helpful. even the things you just me kno know, of the billion dollars, how much is being spent on poppy eradication? >> first off, i want to clarify it is not a billion dollars. will we talk about that, the numbers that i have better actual, the monies were about $160 million. >> so but not a billion dollars could you give me a rough idea of the number. >> the 2019 request that we have is $632 million. >> and have up the actual for the previous. >> the afghanistan numbers are $632.8 million request for 2019. >> , 2018. >> it was 782.8 million.

>> okay so we made a billion-dollar commitment at the brussels conference in 2016. what was the 2017 number. >> 846. >> so we are spending that our military aid and we reduced our commitment to 632 million on civilian eight. >> yes. >> we go to mr. ted of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you master. lieutenant general austin muller said yesterday the biggest problem in afghanistan are the sanctuaries in pakistan that shelter terrorists. would you agree with that assessment? >> i agree with the assessment that without pakistan support we cannot, it would be very

challenging to achieve our goals in afghanistan and pakistan continues, sanctuaries continue to exist for network leaders and fighters. >> so over the years we've had our troops down there and pakistan. i've been down on the border as many other members of congress have and they're doing the best job they can, but during the day the taliban come across the border, commit mischief and run back into pakistan and height. pakistan government has hidden terrorist leaders in the past, there is sanctuary for terrorist leaders and somehow we still give pakistan money with the promise that they will do better. they sweettalk us and say give us more american aid, we will go after the terrorists. we do that every year. we continue to do it. we've done it for i don't know how many years, 17 and yet, nothing changes. they harbor terrorists, they

fight terrorists in their country but they pay for terrorist to go across the border into afghanistan to kill americans and our allies. i think it is nonsense that we continue to send money to pakistan with the promise of we will do better. that's just my opinion. how much money have we spent over the last 17 years of afghanistan. >> on the civilian side we've spent approximately 29 billion. >> about the military side. >> i don't have the figures. >> you have an estimate. >> so 29 billion on the civilian side and who knows on the military side. secretary mathis stated that the united states is plan will stay, if necessary in afghanistan indefinitely.

now, to me that is problematic. no end in sight. we been there 17 years, no end in sight. history said the war of the roses lasted 32 years with basically no resolution or the hundred year war lasted 116 years between france and england. indefinitely. i find that very alarming that there is no end in sight or that we are prepared to stay there for as long as possible. and that the situation hasn't changed for the united states to send money to afghanistan. someone has said afghanistan is where empires go to die. i don't know if that's true or not but nobody ever one in pakistan, in afghanistan. so, are we, the united states

in the nationbuilding of afghanistan. are we building afghanistan into a new nation in our image , democracy, are we in the nationbuilding business with that 2 29 billion we spent on civilian programs. >> president trump has been very clear that we are not in the nationbuilding business. rather than terming the war an indefinite war, with the administration had thought to counter was the idea of having a troop surge and announcing the departure at the same time allowing the taliban to wait us out. we are no longer given the taliban and the luxury of knowing when the united states plans to leave and so the united states will leave when we are assured that afghanistan is not again going to become a safe haven for terrorists plotting against them. >> and that may be indefinitely.

>> we don't know, has the situation changed in the past 17 years? on we in the same place we were 17 years ago, we have pakistan still supporting terrorists, the government is shaky in afghanistan, are we in the same situation but yet we will say, and i'm not arguing with the policy, we say we will be there indefinitely if need be to make sure we obtain victory. >> the situation is change because the afghan national security forces are in the lead. we are not. it's change because were putting unprecedented pressure on pakistan including the suspension of 1.6 billion in military systems and 900 in college and support fund. the administration set strategy is much more proactive in trying to put pressure on those countries and actors that we think can make. >> i think we should cut off all aid to pakistan until they come to the table and if

there's proof that there's not harboring terrorists in their own country and sending them across the border. thank you. >> ted of florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome investor wells. it has been more than a decade and a half since we've been in afghanistan and a military solution is becoming more and more likely. we haven't heard enough about the administration's long-term plan outside of the edition of troops. many push for dialogue with the taliban and their renouncing violence and it's absolutely an appealing image, but dialogue with them is also an incredibly dangerous endeavor. after 17 years of our military combating the taliban, they continue to engage in terror tactics on our civilians, the afghan government and u.s.

forces and the introduction of isis aligned groups which further complicates the field. i support integrating moderates defecting from italian who are committed to the radical and evil ideology. observing them in a responsible and safe way is an important step if we can do it. the recent troops had shown promise but now the telegram has resumed attacks and further religious groups have vested themselves in the government with the promise of a better future and the afghan government hasn't been hardened to a point where it's institutions, it's reach, and stability are from enough to support negotiations for position of power. the main question i have is, given the taliban's efforts decades past when they went house to house to identify and

kill, as are thousands of them being killed, what reaction do we expect from religious ethnic or tribal groups in the afghan government who have suffered mightily at the hands of the taliban if negotiations with the delvin are introduced. >> we are letting the afghan government take the lead in putting forward a piece proposal which has been both visionary and forward meaning. the president has judged that the afghan people continue to seek peace. that is supported by all the polling data we see which, regardless of the incredible violence, and you've only mentioned one horrible chapter of violence in afghanistan, but regardless of the horrible violence that afghans have seen they remain committed to peace and the celebrations that took place are manifestation of what is a

broad nationwide desire for peace. the higher peace council is a multiethnic body. peace cannot be made. peace has to include all of the ethnic and social groups of afghanistan, and i would argue it has to include the women of afghanistan. any peace process is going to have to be broad-based. >> i appreciate that view, and i understand the way what we've seen, but are you confident, is our government confident that the government in afghanistan is strong enough to be able to do this? strong enough to be able to, specifically with respect to the taliban, to include them in negotiations? >> i think because were not trying to put up hurdles to peace negotiations, where the united states interest why is and what comes out of a

negotiation process. we can live with negotiations that produce the end to violence and the ties to terrorists and respect for constitution that can be amended, and so, rather than prejudge whether it can happen or not we are ready to support the process, facilitate facilitated, we want to be a negotiated and dignified solution. if the taliban is unprepared and unwilling to make peace, we've made it very clear we will deny them a military victory. >> and as it relates to providing this, for what diplomatic, what are the range of the atlantic processes and are we using all of them. >> yes, i think we're using many different levers to support efforts to create diplomatic processes or negotiating political processes. of course the military pressure is one portion.

the pressure on pakistan is important, the pressure were bringing to bear against taliban financing. what were saying the government do to mobilize religious messaging against the very basis for justification for their actions, the international consensus we built diplomatically involving bilateral and multilateral engagements, and of course always willing to see whether other groups within afghanistan are prepared to create separate peace. all of these raise the state to create incentives to take up what we think is a fair offer and an offer to produce a taliban that plays a part in the particle life of afghanistan. >> i appreciate you being here. i'm grateful for commitment you make. >> and wagner of missouri.

>> thank you. thank you for organizing this hearing. i appreciate the opportunity to evaluate the new direction. there's a clear interest in preventing hostility in afghanistan but has made itself central to american operations. in the past they have wagered that the united states would rather be there in complete support then lose it entirely. how well is the administration communicating their support of

terrorism. >> i think there have been direct talks with the senior leadership that also action under president trump's administration. we have taken the unprecedented step of suspending military assistance inclusion support fund based on the fact that they had not been taking the steps necessary. i think we agree to a lot to do part peace in afghanistan. the challenge is how do you secure pakistan support for negotiated process rather than its tolerance of proxies. we have heard very positive statements from the chief of army staff of pakistan who says there can be no room for

nonstate actors in pakistan can't be a normal state of one of their extremist groups are on the soil. what we need to see our actions that are taken to ensure that is the case. we do not deny that pakistan has fought its own heroic battles against terrorism and defeated the pakistani taliban and just reintegrated their federally administrated tribal areas into the governing system of pakistan, but we treat all terrorists as our terrorist enemies and we expect that they should do the same. : : :

last month. both leaders are important not only providing the kind of support for the northern distribution but stitching afghanistan back to the region. through our engagement with the central asian states, we engage in a format with all of the central asians and we very much are supporting their efforts to proactively increase trade with afghanistan and increase exchanges and gave afghanistan options as it puts out its diplomatic relations. >> how do the relations affect the feasibilitrenovations affecn supply line through central asia and the caucasus?

>> they've operated successfully and continue to operate successfully. i would argue more generally they have the more interesting concerns in afghanistan and an important role to play in helping to stabilize afghanistan and we would like to see russia do more to provide the kind of assistance to the government of afghanistan so that it can bring the tablet into the negotiating table. >> although they declined to put boots on the ground they showed a keen interest in strengthening the capacity. how is the administration encouraging deeper indian involvement? >> we do joint training programs. some of the training programs are conducted. we have a trilateral with engine officials and afghan officials to coordinate and make sure that we are lashed up in the

development approach at the diplomatic approach us with private sector companies interested in investing can use india as a launching pad. the. >> thank you mr. chair and i will not use all of my time. how will this influence possible peace talks if they do not take this with the u.s. position that the tub again should negotiate directly with the afghan government and not directly with the u.s. chain should ask >> it sends a strong signal about the inclusivity and strengthening of democratic institutions so our efforts are

focused on helping to empower the independent election commission said they hav so thee resources and capacity to undertake a critical reform this electoral season by having a vote based on the polling. i think the number registered in candidates that have come forward are liste vested in this democratic process. >> i will stop so that my colleague can get this question in. >> thank you to my colleague and thank you mr. chairman. this is just one of those things everybody wants to come to an end but i don't see a clear strategy of how we are going to do that. answering the question about the

cost we are well over a trillion dollars trying to bring peace to afghanistan. and as dana rohrabacher brought up it is a tribal institute of culture. what happened in afghanistan and pakistan and other major areas and i understand perfect there's more ithereis more in afghanisty than there was before we started our war on drugs as there is more cocaine in colombia after we started the war on drugs and of course the mexico for 72,000 acres of obedience it seems like we are going backwards with the amount of money, time and resources, tragic loss of life on both outside the afghan. we need a new game plan. my question is any peace process and brought up the list include

the women into those with the good that there's a system in afghanistan that allows for that with the amount of corruption in the government, what is your thought? stanek the government has been organizing itself in preparation for the possibilities. you have the establishment of the hired peace council that is multiethnic and has been engaging it at provincial levels than to put together religious leaders and part of a conversation about what peace might look like, you've seen gathering of religious leaders. >> that is a great thing they all came together. do the people in afghanistan believe in a government with a democratic process or are they so ingrained into a tribal government can they even see the

possibility or are we talking generations to change in that situation? >> afghanistan had successful elections i'm not trying to deny the importance of the tribal structures or alters the state administrative by stepping forward that they have embraced this democratic experience. >> do they understand, if you believe anwebelieve and supporte constitution and their country do they understand that the french philosopher when he came through with america in the 18 hundreds was astounded by the level of understanding people had in our constitution and that has led us where we are at from the bottom up. do they have that same comprehension? scenic i am not capable of answering that question but enshrined in the afghan

constitution is the ability to change it and the ability to evoke a traditional gathering of afghan leaders, so i think it doesn't deny the traditional forms as well. >> but it doesn't empower the people. i'm going to cut this off because we are out of time but i would love to talk with you more. >> joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you for your service. it is personal to me that the significance of afghanistan that is the attacks of 9/11 occurred on the case operating out of afghanistan to attack the states in sydney thand said to me the f what you are trying to do is so important and then i'm also

grateful the brigade served for a year and developed extraordinary appreciation of the talented people in afghanistan and i'm also grateful my youngest son the second lieutenant served as an engineer so i'd seen it from the ground up with almost 15 visits over the years to see the potential that we have. it's important and it does relate to the global war on terrorists and that is the focus of the campaign has been on syria and iraq tha but has a foothold to launch against the coalition forces. to what extent is the islamic state a threat to stability in the security of afghanistan? >> estimates are brought up 2,000 to 5,000 exist in afghanistan and are primarily

drawn from other members of other terrorist groups, wit wher it's the tablet and or im you. but we have to be concerned by its resilience and take it seriously. we targeted heavily where there's been an outpost and it's a reminder to us that there is some worse than an insurgency that is a nationalist in nature so it is a threat that we take extremely seriously and have devoted significant asset to eradicating. >> of the changes in relationships with other groups in the area of activity and operational abilities, to what extent is the patienc outpatienr strategic planning? >> i think isis is a reminder of

why we are still in afghanistan and need to have those commitments to afghanistan because the chaos and insecurity for the double than insurgency has created has allowed this petri dish for other groups to take advantage. we are in afghanistan because they pose a threat to our homeland and our allies and we take it very seriously. i would defer to our military colleagues for the details of the counterterrorism operations underway but we've intensified thosthose observations that have taken out a leader and i think we've conducted over 1400 operations over the course of the last year directed against isis. >> your comments are so refreshing into the ultimate result protecting american families. last august the administration announced a strategy that focused on conditions-based rather than time-based.

what are the additional base objectives utilized to measure success backs backs >> that is going to be the place to trigger his eye and violence that support the constitution that can be achieved through a negotiated political settlement. >> finally a critical point in democracy, with democratic institutions are the most reliable and voter education and rights of the afghan people and are they capable of producing credible elections this will? stanek this is going to be the first afghan led and conducted this isn't one that's been put on by the international community of the un so that's a reflection of the increased capacity. i think the political parties have an important role to play in educating and encouraging afghans to vote and understand the system and this is very much

a work in progress there's very few countries that are younger than the modern afghanistan and so i think we have to expect improvements will occur over time. >> thank you for your leadersh leadership. i want to thank my colleague and the ambassador because i heard something that i thought was synced and insightful and that is paraphrasing. paraphrasing. there i are threats greater than the insurgency so we recognize that while it is bad and has a global sort of orientation that is probably worse which doesn't eradicate the responsibility particularly as it relates to did you break it you buy it before they go for the moment down that road when we underwent the paradigm in the arena americans presumably deal with other nations, there is a strong

team in the federa and the fedet as i've argued in afghanistan right now try as they might be a spider to the fact you can't go from the airfield to the compound without enhanced security measures would indicate the control of the government is and what they like for it to be. the security apparatus etc. so we need to understand it doesn't mirror that with what has become at home and when we talk about the taliban i would see your comment on the fact i would argue with this juncture there is no element for example under mullah omar desk warlords in the interest that act in many instances autonomous for folks like yourself an ambassador wells and any forces in the federal government of

afghanistan to deal with because we see things like atrocities committed against civilian contractors driving supplies etc. on the internet and which obviously are useful into those would be to intimidate those that work for the government to intimidate the coalition perpetrated by subgroups but not endorsed by others. you need not make peace with your friends which was insightful in and of itself and yet there are elements of express differing degrees of willingness to sit down and talk and there are those who will probably be for the lack of a more artistic term dead enders. so the money for the narcotics industry in afghanistan doesn't flow directly to the government is the perfect? >> from the narcotics industry is a poppy field etc. doesn't flow directly to the federal

government. but the coalition if you will does flow through the government, correct? >> a portion goes to the trust fund administered by the world bank and the remaining money with a little bit of an exception if administered separately on the off budget programs administered by others. >> i'm driving if perhaps how if we can saturday. i'm very tidy aid int in the development into afghanistan to the eradication efforts. the challenge we face is produced in the taliban controlled and tested areas and so again this is a security

issue i think as a first cut. >> but you said earlier the government is making it an interest not undergoing eradication programs at this juncture is that accurate? >> yes the government would assess and increase the appeal of the organization. >> said something to talk about. i'm not dictating this is what the policy should be that if we look at the actual functioning to the extent it exists derives the benefit they are given an either/or or they would fall on the side we wanted them on. going really quickly, there is a tax on contractors in afghanistan but we've become aware of that stems from the karzai regime that is arbitrary and probably not consistent with the agreements. has anything been done to address the cause ultimately if taxes the american citizens as

we pay for permissions to develop the security etc. by virtue of creating additional cost. has anybody done anything about that? >> we can follow up. >> thank you. thank fishermen and ambassador wells. >> i think you also ambassador wells. we've heard creating the circumstances for the peaceful and stable afghanistan is a very complex but very critical mission. the administration has taken several steps toward that end but we need to see more progress. at this point, we've got one minute left to a vote on the floor, so the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

anthony kennedy announced he is retiring. effective at the end of july. the 81-year-old kennedy said he is stepping down after more than 30 years on the court. other appointees heedful they point on abortion, affirmative action, rights, guns, campaign finance and voting rights. without him, the court will be split between four liberal justices who were appointed by democratic presidents and for conservatives who were named by republicans. at the nintof the ninth circuitl conference in 2016, justice anthony kennedy talked about the importance of his ruling on every case as a member of the supreme court. >> obviously the supreme court has to deal with issues that

have a profound impact on individuals and on society. the last word on those issues when you issue the decision and i'd like to know, and you played a critical role in many of those decisions. i guess my question is does that ever weigh on you when you wrestle with having to make a decision like that? >> any judge in this room knows the decisions and the fascination is the same as the duty of being a judge and that is to ask yourself why am i about to rule the way that i'm about to rule. you must always ask your self this question. you can't get through life, you can't get through the day without making certain assumptions, certain reform

ideas. but in the law in particular in judging, you must find the reason that his income in your proposed decision and then put that into a form of words and then ask is it logical, is it fairthat doesn't accord with the constitution, doesn't accord with common sense and with my own ethics and sense of values that i must follow as a judge, not my personal values, but those values all of us must follow to do our duty and you must always ask yourself this question: keep an open mind and always ask yourself what it is that is driving you to make a decision is not indecision, it is your oath and this is both

the responsibility and privilege of being a judge. do these things weigh on you, of course. and you know you mentioned the social issues. we have to ask ourselves why is it that nine judges, justices, five of the nine can make decisions of such great importance with respect to issues of social justice sometimes it is said that the court is an anti-majoritarian institution that we defend the rights of the majority. that's true, but over time over history is important that the majority accept the decisions as kodak. and how does that happen? because we give a reason for what we do when we value the opinion.

we try to compel the allegiance of agreement with what we have done and over time it seems to me most of the decisions found acceptance in the bench and the bar and most important the american people. this wasn't a position i thought, some of you know the story. we told them president we didn't want to go to washington, but he was a rather insistent man and said if he asked me it was there for me to accept. so we are pleased to fulfill the role that the constitution gives us. >> justice kennedy was nominated by president reagan in 1987. he was confirmed on february 3, 1988 and sworn in as an

associate justice two weeks later on february 18, 1988.

to pick to lead the affair testified to the senate veterans affairs committee. he answered questions on issues facing the va and at first the "washington post" story about his participation in defense several years ago in connection with the group the sons of confederate veterans. the hearing is just under two hours.