we look back on the civil rights movement? you mean black and white people weren't allowed to drink out of the same water fountain? did we do that? and that's shameful. those are the exact same feelings and sentiments we will have here in the united states years from now when we say, did we really deny people health care? we really had people die because they couldn't afford health care when the treatment was available, the technology was available? we really let that happen? and this is a turning point in our country's history. and i'm proud to be part of it. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to praise the generosity and community work of my friend jerry long. today he's being honored for his generous philanthropy in north carolina as the ymca changes its name to the jeverry long family ymca. this honor comes to jerry thanks to his tireless work as a community leader he understands that making a positive difference in your community and helping your neighbors can start with he hard work and dedication of just one person. his example of serving his community is inspiring and this renaming is a much-deserved honor. congratulations to jerry and his family and thank you for your many years of giving back to forsyth county and the communities there. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced spoil -- policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the

gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm privileged and honored to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the house of representatives. i appreciate the opportunity to i think help enlighten you and the members listening in and anyone who might be observing this process we have in the house of representatives. in this great deliberative body, there's a limited amount of time we can debate here on the floor. and as things churn through, sometimes we don't come back and revisit subject matter i think is necessary to establish the perspective that fit into the broader picture. the perspective i intend to address tonight is the perspective of immigration. that debate has gone on in this country for a number of years. it was brought up by pat buchanan as a candidate for president back in the 1990's, said he would hold hearings on immigration if he was elected

president of the united states he did a lot to help galvanize the immigration debate and bring the issues that are important to this country to the forefront. people like tom tancredo, probably before that time actually, raised the issue of immigration and the rule of law over and over again. eventually the american people began to look at the circumstances of millions of people that are in the united states illegally, their impact on this economy this society, and this culture. as intense as this debate got in 2006 and 2007, it got so intense, mr. speaker, that as the senate began to move on a comprehensive amnesty bill that was bipartisan in its nature, however weak it was in its rationale, it had the support of the president of the united states at that time george w. bush, they had the support of leaders of the democrat and the

republican party in the united states senate as well as here in the house of representatives, mr. speaker. and yes yet, and yet -- and yet, and yet, the american people rejected the idea of amnesty, whether it was in the nuances they tried to bring through or blanket amnesty. here we are again, mr. speaker. here we are again with a transformational issue that's slowly being brought forward before the american people. i'm here to say, let's pay attention my red flag is up. i've watched the transition of issues that have unfolded since -- actually, for year, but intensely unfolded since the beginning of the obama presidency. these issues unfoldled -- unfolded in this fashion. perhaps i'll go back and revisit them many more detail. the american people did go to the polls a year ago last november and sustained majorities and actually

expanded majorities for democrats in the united states senate and the u.s. house of representatives and they elected a president who fit their mold as a party member, a democrat, a very liberal democrat. in fact, president obama, in the short time he served in the united states senate, had the most liberal voting record out of all 100 u.s. senators. so they elected, i think it's not arguable or even close to arguable, the people they have united states elected the most -- the people of the united states elected the most liberal president of this country. while there wasn't legitimate debate in the presidential race that had to deal with immigrants, they knew they were at odds on the immigration issue with the american people. john mccain knew this, he didn't bring up immigration, at least not in a substantial way, and barack obama knew the same thing dnd didn't -- and didn't bring immigration up in a

substantial way after the nomination. so this discussion went forward about economic security, discussions about energy, but not discussions about immigration. here we are today, a year and a month after president obama was elected, and we have seen these big issues come through this congress. and here is the sequence of events, mr. speaker, that's taken place. i invite anybody to challenge me on the facts of these, but it's that during the bush administration we had the beginning of the first call for tarp funding. that was the beginning request that began by my mental marker here, chronologically, september 19, 2008, when secretary of the treasury at the time, henry paulsen, came to this capitol and asked for $700 billion, all of it, of course, borrowed money, all of it would have to be paid back and the interest on it by the taxpayers and their children and grandchildren, presuming we

would be able to retire a national debt in that period of time or it might take more generations. $700 billion in tarp, this congress approved after of -- half of it then, and i believe it was into october, early part of october, 2008, delayed the other half to be approved by a congress to be elected later and signed into law by a president to be elected later. that began september 19, 2008. $700 billion in tarp funding. partly before that, mostly after that, became the sequence of events then as the described downward spiral and threat of economic crisis of global proportions came at us here in this congress and it was spread around the globe, causing nation after nation to react in one fashion or another, we saw most of it under the hand of president obama, the nationalization of three large

investment banks, fannie mae, freddie mac, a.i.g., the large insurance company, general motors, chrysler, all of that, swept through in a period of time of approximately a year. and at the tail end, framing the nationalization of those eight huge entities that represent about 1/3 of the private sector property -- about 1/3 of the private sector profits in the united states, framed on the other end of that nationalization effort on the part of the white house and those who supported that, was the $787 billion economic stimulus plan. all of this just raced us toward the nationalization of an economy, the socialization of our economy, mr. speaker. the american people looked at that and it went so fast and they didn't believe they had the expertise and they trusted wall street and they trusted big business in america and they believed, as i did for a

time in my adult life that wall street was looking out for the foundations of free enterprise capitalism so that over the long-term, they could continue to do business in a free market environment and be able to buy, sell, trade, and make legitimate gain by creating real wealth that is rooted in the productivity increase of the american workers, the american economy. it didn't turn out to be necessarily the case that clearly. while this was unfolding, $700 billion in tarp, the eight huge national entities, private sector, that were nationalized by the federal government and the $787 billion economic stimulus plan, all of that came at the american people faster than they could react. faster than they could understand. and they were not simple enough in their -- in the foundational understanding of them, that the american people could look at that, describe it in a bumper

sticker and mobilize. it took too long to understand them, took too long to explain, it was hard for the american people to get caught up and hard for the members of congress to understand the details to rise up and say, hold it, that's it, we've got to stop. we cannot race down this path and leap off the abyss into the socialized economy. that's where we have gone, mr. speaker. the american people started to catch up when they saw cap and trade be pushed through this congress. the cap and tax legislation that taxes every bit of energy in america and transfers wealth from one group of people in america to another group they understand that. it came so fast they couldn't get mobilized very much. meanwhile, while this was going on, organizations across america were spontaneously growing up out of the prairie and the mountains and off the east coast. people who love this constitution, love fiscal

responsibility and free market capitalism have risen up and carried their flag into city after city and jammed this united states capital and when you look out across the sea of people, you'll see represented there american flags, one after another after another. patriotic americans, any one of which i would expect to see at my own church picnic. among those american flags, you'll see yellow "don't tread on me" flags. these are the americans that will save us from the greed, political power greed and economic greed, in this country. all of that has taken place, the american people have mobilized. by the end of july of 2009 this year, we've seen all of this come to pass they saw cap and trade or cap and tax pass off the floor of the house of representatives and a hurry-up rush to judgment, a proposal and a model that cannot be

sustained, argued or debated in any fashion and neither can the science be defended especially in light of the emails dumped onto the internet in the last week or two. we've seen at least one resignation. phil jones, one of the scientists promoting the climate change argument, the change went from the words global warming to the phrase climate change because obviously they can't show the warming of the globe over the last decade in the fashion they predicted. all this happened, we saw town hall meetings fill up across america, during the month of august and early september. hundreds and hundreds of town hall meetings, hundreds of thousands of americans came up and filled those town hall meetings. and they filled up the public squares and they stepped up and resisted the idea of a government-run health care system of socialized medicine in america. now the american people are starting to get some traction.

they can see the pattern. they voted for change. they didn't know what the change was, mr. speaker. and now they have a pretty good idea -- madam speaker, excuse me. now they have a pretty good idea of that change that has been in store for us, and they reject it. that's why they filled up the capitol, filled up this the town hall meetings. what we've seen so far, this intensity this resistance to cap and tax, this resistance to a national health care act, the resistance that brought somewhere between 20,000 and 60,000 people here to this capitol, outside this west side of the -- west side of the capitol on the thursday before the final vote and some of those people who came here on thursday got on a plane and flew back to their hometown, landed and saw they had a request to come back to the capitol to do this again on saturday to do our level best

to dump out all our energy to kill this socialized medicine bill. that's the american people mobilized, madam speaker. the american people have been mobilized in every state in in this union and they came to this capitol from every single state, including alaska and hawaii and that mobilization of american people that are determined to defend this country and the values that made this a great nation is only a smaller part of the energy that's out there if this president, majority in this congress, this pelosi majority and the harry reid majority down the hallway through the center of the capitol, the united states senate, if they decide they want to try to bring comprehensive amnesty to overhaul the immigration laws in the united states of america, rather than enforcing them, we've seen nothing yet, madam speaker, so far this year

to what we will see if they try to bring amnesty and force that down the throats of the american people. . the americans understand what's going on. at the core is the rule of law. a nation cannot be a nation unless it defends the rule of law. and we have been so proud of the rule of law in america. when i went home over thanksgiving vacation, i arrived home very early friday morning and i went to sue city and one of the things i did was go to a naturalization ceremony and i have spoken to groups there a number of times. 37 new americans that took an oath to the united states that day and they were from 11

different countries that i counted, perhaps a couple more, these are people that are as much an american citizen as the resident of 1600 pennsylvania avenue or the residents in my house and i welcome them if they follow the law and come here lawfully to have access to this american dream because when they do, they will build this dream for others. and the vitality that we have gotten from every donor nation is the cream of the crop from every donor civilization. one of the things about america that's unique. we are not just an appendage of western europe. we have a unique vitality, madam speaker. it's rooted in a lot of things and built upon the foundation of the pillars of american exceptionalism, among them,

capitalism, freedom of speech, religion, and right to bear arms and right to be judged by a jury of your peers and the rule of law. and the raleigh of law says if you are judged -- and i said that to this new group of new americans and i said this, if you come before a court of law before the united states of america, if you are the richest man in the world, you'll get the same level of justice that you'll get if you are the poorest man in america. ful bill gates comes before the federal court, he will be judged in the same standard as the poorest person in that room that day or the poorest room they can find off the street, the same measure of justice. it's what we pledged. it's one of those foundations of being an american, the same level of justice.

justice is blind. equal justice before the law. that rule of law, that profound respect for the rule of law would be cast asunderer if we grant amnesty to anyone, especially to 20 million or more that have come into the united states illegally, demonstrated their lack of respect for rule of law and their contempt for the rule of law in america. during the early part of july, i went down to the board, mostly in -- border, mostly in arizona, no gales, the busiest patrol station. and there, as i watched watched was happening, we went out and watched as some who were jumppings the fence that exists there, not good enough fence,

but better than no fence. they monitor the fence. picked up some illegals that had jumped the fence or otherwise broke into the united states and others on film that were picked up and brought to the center, the center at the border patrol station at nogales. good people who work there. if you watch the people who i had seen arrested because of breaking our immigration law come waltzing into the border patrol station in nogales, some of them with a smirk on their face. so they got caught and knew what was going to happen. and i looked at that smirk and not every one of them and probably not even quite half of them, but the attitude of many of those who were picked up were unlawful entry into the united

states was an attitude that allowed that smirk to be there that they had tried to pull something off and got caught and knew what would happen to them. they knew they would be released and released back to mexico and would have a chance in the next hour, next day or next week, whenever they decided, to come back into the united states again. and they knew they could keep trying over and over and over again until they finally got where they wanted to go. and some of these questions come down to this, i pose this question, how often does one suppose that a unique individual is picked up at the border sneaking in to the united states? we don't have to wonder or ask the question, because we have some data now that's more than a-year-old since we have been accumulating, fingerprinting and taking a digital photograph of each individual who is being processed for a voluntary return or anyone who has been processed

for violating immigration laws. those who have been processed. so i asked the question, how many times do you meet a unique individual? what's the max number? it goes to 37 or 38 times for one single individual who has been picked up and brought to the same station, printed, photographed and then what happens -- and by the way, madam speaker, the process is this. border patrol picks them up and when they're able to interdict one or more individuals, then they call the contractor. the contractor who has ar van and couple uniformed officers and the van is set up for security so they can haul inmates or those individuals in the van. the van picks them up and two of these people who look like officers, i guess you say they are officers, but contractors, they load up the one or more illegals that have been

interdicted by the border patrol and take them up to the station when they walk in. they already have their little plastic bag with their personal items in it and sit down against the wall and get processed, fingerprinted and pictures taken and put them in one of four holding cells and if they do a voluntary return, then they pick them up. might be the same officers, often is the same officers that will take these illegals and haul them down to the border, turn the van sideways, open up the side door and get out the side of the van and walk back into mexico. the doors close on the van. and they squeal their tires and go back to get another load. the things i saw in front of my eyes were not catch and release into the united states, but catch near the border and release at the border and direct them to go back to mexico. no further questions asked. we have your prints and digital

photograph. and evidence ace 37 to 38 times a you nook individual. the data supports numbers that goes up to 28 times that we process the same individual. and that's part of the record. what kind of a law enforcement, what kind of a rule of law would establish a law that says it's illegal to come into the united states and violate our immigration laws and pick people up, run them through the process and drop them off back at the border and put them in the condition they were in and close to the place he they were in and not at least have a limit, voluntary return 28 times, no consequences? i asked those questions. what do you do when you have these numbers that run up even a second time, a first time. i would say zero tolerance, let's put the resources down

there and see what kind of a deterrent effect we can establish. that's not the case. when they move people up the line for expedited removal and then try to get them a stiff sentence to punish them, at least in one case, the judge released the individual for time served. what a demoralizing exercise to go to work every day, put on the uniform of the border patrol and go out and pick up individuals that will be -- you catch them and a crooktor hauls them, -- contractor hauls them and processed through the station and go back to the border in order to be caught again. around and around and around again. a never-ending circle and we call that enforcement of immigration law. at least, madam speaker, we have immigration law. at least it's against the law to come into the united states in violation of the standards that we have and at least we have

penalties we can impose against the people who do. we here in a congress looks like it has the will to start this idea again, this comprehensive amnesty argument again that if people can get into the united states and express they want to stay here, that we will say well 's give you the path to citizenship because we don't have the will to enforce the law. and this argument, this baseless argument that's been made by this side of the aisle over and over again and by some on this side of the aisle that somehow america can't get along without having imgrants, illegal and otherwise and they say emillegal immigrants to do the work that the americans won't do. what an offense to the people that are hard working in america, americans are the

majority of every single profession out there and i mean legal workers in america, with the exception of agriculture and farm workers. everywhere else, they say predominantly american. tell me what jobs. john mccain said americans won't pick lettuce. i would have lost my whole construction crews. so that argument that there are jobs americans won't do and jobs that must be done, isn't the foundation. americans will do these jobs over and over again. let me describe to you the most difficult job there is, the most dangerous, dirtiest, the most strsful, the riskiest, hottest, dirtiest, nastyiest to do is rooting terrorists out of places

like fallujah, ramallah or iraq, afghanistan, in the mountains of afghanistan for example. that is the most difficult job there is. you don't get to take a shower every day and take a coffee break when the bullets are flying or i.e.d.'s are being detonated. what are we paying them to do that, about $8.09 an hour presuming it is a 40-hour week. and you look to them and say there are jobs americans won't do. that marine, that soldier, he's going to look at you and say what is more nassiest than this job for the love of my country for $80eu7b09 and have to take this insult. america cons do every job. i look at my family and

neighbors and hard to come up with a job that we haven't done and that includes processing meat. i have done a fair amount of it myself, but if i look at the meat processing around my neighborhood 25 years ago and about that era of time, if you wanted to get a job in the packing plant around my neighborhood, you had to know somebody to get in. these weren't union jobs but had to know somebody to get a job like that because they paid well. the benefits were competitive with any place else. i watch people grow up and maneuver and position themselves to go through school so they can get a job at the packing plant just a way the miners got in line to mine some coal or steel workers lined up at the mill in generation after generation went to work at the steel mill. these are proud jobs and there's dignity in every kind of work that's necessary to be done.

but the time 25, 30 years ago when you had to know someone to work at the packing plant and the job paid about the same as a school teacher made then. today, that same job is usually held by someone whom we suspect is illegal and pays about half what a teacher makes. so what we have seen is we have seen an oversupply of labor that has poured into these jobs because people can't go in and do these jobs without being particularly educated and can't do it without being particularly ambitious. and so the young american that grew up that only wanted to do and do his 40 hours a week and work in the plant and punch the clock and come home and raise his kids and take them fishing and pay for a modest house and give an opportunity for his children and focus his life on other things other than career advancement, that opportunity is

nearly gone in america today because we have an oversupply of labor that's willing to work cheap and they can compete in these jobs because it doesn't take a long period of education to do some of the work out there where the wages have gone down. the highest levels of unemployment we have in america are in the lower skilled jobs. and that's to the detriment of the american worker. . madam speaker, there are people out there today going to work in these jobs, they are legal immigrants or natural born americans and when they step up to the line, whether it's at the steel mill or the packing plant or food processing or whatever it might be, if they look to their right, and they see someone who they suspect is illegal and may well know that they are and they look to their left and see another person they suspect is illegal or know that they are, they need to understand that on their right

and left are likely jobs that americans would be doing if those positions weren't taken by those who broke into this country or those who overstayed their visas, madam speaker. and here we are with the president of the united states, tomorrow, having his jobs summit at the white house and there you will see a collection of keynesian economists, the kind of brains that brought about the things i talked about, from tarp funding to the nationalization of investment banks and fannie mae and freddie mac and general motors and chrysler and $750 billion in stimulus plan, the kind of brains that decided to tax all the energy consumed in america and tell america we're going to create green job the kind of people who can't draw a distinction between the private sector and public sector, people who don't understand that it's the private sector that produces all the new wealth that's necessary, in

fact, all the wealth that's necessary, make this society work and that out of that wealth that comes from the private sector is skimmed the funding that goes into the government machinery. it has been so convoluted over the last generation or so that economists can go through college education and go off and get their masters and really not have much exposure to where the newwell comes from. i need to make this point, madam speaker, that the american people need to understand, there's a distinction between the private sector, the productive sector of the economy, and the public sector of the economy, the parasitic sector of the economy. the sector of economy that comes from government that taxes production and punishes production until it defeats the very spirit of the entrepreneurs that start the companies that create the jobs and these companies that come from the entrepreneurs, they

aren't just based on some esoteric dream like we seem to be getting out of the white house economists. that we'll hear about tomorrow. the idea we have out there, i can't draw a distinction very much between what's going on between the years of larry somers, for example, or someone who may believe that they can always keep pushing the system further ahead. we've heard of those people. this economy, madam speaker my news to the white house is, this american economy is not just simply a large magic chain letter you can stimulate some people to make another investment and send out another dozen letters in the chain and they would get theirs out of the next group of suckers, that's what a chain letter does. that's what a government-driven economy does. it always has to find another group of suckers. and the suckers today are becoming the ones that are producing some wealth in the private sector.

where does wealth come from? it comes from the production of goods and services i first that are essential to the survival of mankind and second for the production of goods and services that improve the productivity of those goods and services that are essential to the survival of mankind system of if it's food, clothing, and shelter, the things we must have if we're going to live, if you produce those things, you're at the foundation of the new wealth. if you produce these thing -- those things that make us more efficient in producing those essentials for life you're at the second level of the economy. the third level is the disposable income that comes that's in excess of the necessities required to replace your capital investment and the necessities required to continue the production of the necessities of life. that's disposable income. that's the income we use to add those thing in our quality of

life to allow us to go to disney world, go on vacation, those things where we buy nice things to sit on the shelf to make us feel good. they're not essential, they're nice, but we can get along without them. whether you want to mine some gold or some platinum or whether you want to raise some corn or soybeans or cotton or peanuts, all these things adds to our ability to provide for the survival of mankind and the production efficiency of mankind and when we do that well enough, we've got disposable income. and the federal government and other political subdivisions come in and skim the cream off that production out of the private sector i've just described. then you have people like those who have been appointed by the president, hired by the president, and think president himself who sit back, get this thoughtful look on their face and they think, let me see. if i could borrow a few hundred billion dollars from the

chinese and promise to pay interest on that few hundred billion dollars, then i could drop this money in and i could do a few hundred billion dollars' worth of patronage, patronage jobs that will call for more political loyalty and the government jobs that are temporarily created by the taxation and borrowing that takes place. never mind about four years from now or eight years or a decade or twor a generation from now, we'll borrow that money now and drop this into the economy and give this big, giant, economic chain let aerospin. that's what's been going on. it's been going on in this country for a long time. it's gone into overdrive in the last year. and while this is going on, we have this imdwration policy that's becoming more and more errant in its philosophy and its results. i've talked about the lack of will to enforce immigration law just by illustrating what we're

doing. we're doing catch and return as opposed to catch and release. we're just returning them to the border and releasing them there. catch, return, release is a better way to describe what's going on with immigration law in the united states. we have a secretary of the department of homeland security that essentially said, not going to go out and do raids on employers, even if i know there might be thousands there working there illegally. she said she wants to go in and fine the employers that are violating the law by hiring illegals. i think we should do that. but i think when we encounter people in this country illegally, we have an obligation, when we encounter people unlawfully present in the united states to take them back and put them where they're lawfully present. all we're doing is putting people back into the condition they were in before they broke the law. deporting someone who has violated immigration law in the united states is the equivalent of catching, let's just say you

catch a bank robber and he's got the money and you say, you're going to have to give back the money and i'll take you outside the bank and turn you loose again. that's the equivalent of this. anybody who can't enforce the law cannot sustain any kind of law. it's predicated on the ability to return them to where they came and keep them out. not donnell we need to use all levels of law enforcement, we need the 287-g program to be refurbished to what it was before it was distorted by the secretary of homeland security, for the purposes, i believe, of jerking the 287-g local law enforcement rug out from underneath sheriff pyle in maricopa county. that's one of the strong motivations that took place.

we have to have, in a nation with the rule of law, we have got to have cooperation at all levels of government with all laws. we cannot have local law enforcement take a position they don't have the authority to enforce immigration law. of course they do. the attorney general should know that. there's an attorney general's opinion that supports it. a previous attorney general, actually under john ashcroft. there are several federal court cases that support the authority and jurisdiction of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. i could drop those all into the record here tonight, madam speaker. they are a matter of fact here in america, no matter how they've tried to distort this because the open borders people don't want to enforce immigration law. they want to see a greater number of people come into the united states and do so, they want to empower themselves politically with the masses of those that are here illegally.

but they're running up against a little problem, madam speaker. and this problem is the growing problem of unemployment in america. the pressure on our economy, the pressure on our economy that's watching us lose over the last month 190,000 jobs. we lost 190,000 jobs last month, that were eliminated by the downward spiral of our economy. during the same period of time, our federal government saw fit to -- to approve permanent work permits, these are green cards, for legal immigrants of 75,000 per month. if you look at these numbers, here -- these numbers work like this. there are approximately, according to the pew hispanic center, eight million workers working illegally in the united states. i think the number is greater than that.

these numbers can be verified, they're solid analysis. it's not under that unless the suppression of the economy has reduced that number marginally over the last few months and it may have dropped as far as seven million, but their number is eight million. the second number is 75,000. we issued in october of this year, the federal government, 75,000 working -- working permits for immigrants. 75,000 new immigrant workers in just one month. 75,000. that's an annual rate of 900,000 new working legals in the united states of america, while we're losing 190,000 jobs a month this works out to be, on an annual basis, i'm extrapolating over the last month, because we don't know what the future will bring, madam speaker, but i extrapolate this we lost 190,000 jobs last month, that's 2,282,000 in two months at that

rate. those jobs are disappeared. at the same rate, 900,000 jobs taken up by legal immigrants, not to count the illegal immigrants that are there. we have a net annual loss of jobs of about 1.1 -- of 1,183,000 loss of jobs that's a result of the 900,000 green cards. the eight million, perhaps as low as seven million, but eight million illegal workers in the country and you have a pressure on this economy that's -- it's abawesome thing to think that we have the president of the united states that declared his stimulus plan was going to, madam speaker, he said, i'm almost embarrassed to repeat this, save or create 3.5 million jobs by september of 2010. i believe that's the date he gave. save or create 3.5 million by september of 2010.

if we put another $787 billion into the economy which some of that happened, all of it was approved, authorized in one fashion or another, how much was used is another story. the government, led by the white house, was going to cey or create .5 million jobs now has to admit that you can't determine what number of jobs have been created, let alone what jobs have been saved. and i always knew those were pretty slippery words, it's hard to pin down a definition when you say save or create. but on that day, that moment, when i heard the language from the president that he was going to save or create 3.5 million jobs with a $787 billion, my instantaneous response was, as long as there are 3.5 million jobs left in america, they'll be the jobs the president points to and says, those are the jobs i saved with the $787

billion stimulus plan. that's how this language works. if you're going to create jobs, you should be able to quantify how you're going to do that and lay out the cost per job to create them. if you're going to save job, how do you invest money in saving a job. you could go to a company and say, we're going to buy up all this product you're producing because you've got 1,000 jobs here and we'll -- part of the money we're contributing to buy this product we wouldn't buy otherwise is going to save the jobs you have. pretty hard to measure. so the federal government he didn't really do much analysis, they just set up this website this website, madam speaker, that is recovery.gov/transparency/state summaries and the list goes on. i didn't look at 50 states, i went as far as iowa when i learned all i needed to know at this point. this website, not only does it create jobs that certainly

don't exist, but creates congressional districts that don't exist. just for the state of iowa, on this website, transparency -- recovery.gov/transparency, for the jobs that were created in western iowa, alleged, by the white house's website, they spent $862,498 per job created. . they created these jobs in noncongressional districts. we have five congressional districts in iowa. some of these jobs were alleged to have been created in 7th, 8th, 16th, 24th and 31st, iowa congressional districts, jobs createded at the cost of $862,000 and that leaves off the

00 district of iowa. that is nonexistent. carry it out. there, they spent $114,000 to create five nonexistent jobs as well. that is what is going on with these keynesian economy on steroids while americans are lining up for jobs. while this is going on, we have this kind of fuzzy math accounting and a complete misunderstanding of where wealth comes from, a complete misunderstanding of the foundation of our economy. and know that f.d.r. had ideas. keynes said i can solve your unemployment in america. take me to an abandoned coal mine and i'll bury cash in there and fill that coal mine up with garbage. that is before the e.p.a. was

created and turn the entrepreneurs loose to dig up the money up. that was his idea. i know he was sounding faseeshyuss. but give him a sense of humor and accuracy. we have dug holes and filled them back up. the americans want jobs? absolutely they do, madam speaker. here's what's taking place. day labor centers are now seeing natural-born americans, united states citizens, line up at the day labor centers right next to illegals competing for jobs that supposedly americans wouldn't do. "usa today" december 1, titled, unemployment day labor center

and quotes a professor of usual and planning and he says, i quote, you had many, many unemployed construction workers who found themselves without stable work. some of them have gone on to seek employment by standing on street corners alongside immigrant workers. that is the professor at the university of california los angeles. and contractors and homeowners describe the jobs with pay on the spot just like illegals have. there are stories that come from tucson, arlington, los angeles. they say, citizens replace citizens -- are replacing immigrant day laborers who are having trouble finding work. these are people who used to have permanent positions. it's happening everywhere. that's the article from the "usa today."

jobs americans won't do? jobs are lined up. americans are lined up to get jobs in day labor gatherings alongside groups of illegals who have decided not to go back home because of the lack of opportunity here. the unemployment rate is 10.2%. 15.7 million unemployed. madam speaker, if you add the list to that 15.7 million legitimate workers in america who are unemployed and by definition looking for a job, there is another 5.5 million who exhausted their unemployment benefits that are looking for a job. more than 20 million americans that want a job today. and the american workforce of 154.4 million of our total

workforce, there are over 70 million americans of working age not working, over 70 million. we could tap into the workforce of more than 70 million people of working age that simply aren't working because the wages don't pay enough, benefits don't pay enough, maybe they are in between jobs, but they are hireable. these are americans that will work. 70 million, nonworking americans of working age, seven to eight million illegals and can't run our economy unless we have these millions of illegal workers that are here but want to give them amnesty and legalize them? all we have to do, madam speaker is hire one out of 10 of the americans who are of working age and not in the workforce, put them into those jobs and we

could easily replace by hiring 10% of the nonworking americans of working age, we could replace every illegal in america according to these numbers produced by the pew foundation. if it's double that, like i think it is, then we ought to hire two out of 10 americans and looking at 20 million americans looking for work. i think this is an easy solution for us. and by the way, we are wiping out 900,000 jobs a year because of green cards that we're gnting at the rate of 75,000 per month. 280,000 so far this year. that's not the number. that number i believe is 780,000 so far this year. now i see the quote. it becomes federal records show that before the recession began, the federal government issued

780,000 green cards during the first year of the recession. they granted 875,000 new green cards and we are at the pace to go to 900,000 or more this year. 900,000 jobs granted to people who are not at the time the card was advanced, not americans while americans are lined up 20 million deep, we are wiping out almost one million jobs a year because of the legal immigration and we know there is seven to eight million or more jobs that are taken by illegals. and we know if we enforce the job and enforce the law, for every one that -- for every illegal that is removed from a job, it opens up a job slot for an american to step into. madam speaker, any sane nation would go after this enforcement and would adjust their

immigration policy because of the recession we are in. here's what's going on in this chart, madam speaker. the workforce enforcement freefall. the unemployment has gone up 58% overall. at the same time that's happened, here's the enforcement that has gone down. department of homeland security. a lot of that is i.c.e. administrative arrests down, criminal arrests, criminal indictments are down. criminal convictions are down 63%. this whole level is down roughly 60% or a little bit more in the enforcement of immigration laws while unemployment is up almost 60%. what nation that needs a sound economic policy would go down this path of reducing its enforcement of immigration law while it watched unemployment go

up to 10.2% and rising, to 15-plus million people unemployed in america, more than 20 million american. 15.7 million unemployed. 20 million all together. and still, we grant green cards at the rate of 900,000 a year and every one of them -- if they go to work they supplant while we tolerate tens of millions of illegals in america who come here and yes, i know everybody has a dream. but everybody can't live in the united states of america. that is the bottom line. we can't help the world if we sink the life boat. and that's what will happen. i'm for a tighter labor supply, madam speaker, the kind of labor supply that will allow that person who grows up in this country or comes legally to this country to go to work and earn a

living and be able to claim a salary and benefits package that they can raise a family on. and today, it takes two workers and a family to make this happen. making ends meet as best they can. that's not possible today for the lower educated americans. their dreams have been taken away by illegal immigration. and somewhere in america, thousands of times over, over thanksgiving and coming up for christmas, there will be a brother and sister or siblings sitting around the table and ask for blessings on their turkey and start to talk as they eat and somebody will be unemployed and brother and sister will have a job and they'll understand that there are people in the united states illegally and filling the slots that they could have and this discussion becomes a nationwide discussion, the rejection of amnesty starts

to swell. and as the subject is brought forward before this congress, if it is, you will see the american people rise up and the rejection of amnesty that we saw in 2006 and 2007 will be child's play compared to the anger of the american people who now see themselves unemployed to 20 million or more, watching them being replaced by legal immigrants at the rate of almost a million a year and watching eight million or twice as many illegals in america taking jobs that americans will do and taking jobs according to the "usa today" article that i referenced, that americans are standing in line to do right next to people -- if i.c.e. needed to hand out work permits, they would have to deport these workers. this nation doesn't have a coherent immigration law. one of the tools we need to do

is to pass my new idea act, the act the new illegal did he deduction alimbation act. the i.r.s. can clarify that wages and benefits are not deductible for income tax purposes and allows i.r.s. to do the audit and deny the benefits and wages paid to illegals that takes the interest, penalty and tax liability that accrues from that decision, 34% rate will take him touch $16 an hour. employers will understand that they would rather go with a legal worker at $13 than the illegal that can cost them $16 an hour and we have the i.r.s. into this. they love enforcing their work. i know that. so we bring the i.r.s. into the mix and they would be required

under the new idea act to cooperate with the social security administration and department of homeland security. we can shut down this jobs magnet. we can control this border. we can re-establish the rule of law in america. we can re-invigorate this economy and produce a labor supply that the wages paid that if they're willing to work, they need to sustain themselves in this society and we are moving away from it today. we can move this back and refurbish the middle class in america. that's one of our charges during this time and one of our opportunities during this time, madam speaker and i urge that you and every one in this congress bring special attention to the preservation of the rule of law which is more important than our economy in this country is today. with that, madam speaker, i appreciate and i would yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: madam speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye.. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the hous live coverage here on c-span.

over the next five hours, several perspectives on president obama's plan for u.s. troop levels, strategy in afghanistan --. first, we will hear from robert gates in the chairman of the giant chief of staff. gordon brown enters questions from members of parliament about the president's plan and the role of the united kingdom in afghanistan but a more reaction to the president's speech after that. >> this week our guest is malcolm glad well, author and director for the "new yorker" magazine. he has four books on the best- seller list. his newest book is a compilation of stories he would forward.

he wrote for "the new yorker" magazine. >> hillary clinton, robert gates, and a joint chief of staff told members of congress that the president's decision to send more troops to afghanistan is needed to prevent a taliban takeover of the country. the armed services committee heard about strategy in afghanistan for nearly four hours. >> good morning. secretary clinton, secretary gates, animal mullen. welcome for your mawe do welcom. -- will come.

it would not only provide fertile ground for al qaeda and other extremist to regroup and green new plot against the united states, it would also threaten the stability of neighboring pakistan and nuclear-armed countries. for the sake of our military men and women who are or will be deployed, as well as the well-being of our nation, we have got to get the stretch idi right. what we are going to accomplish needs to be clear. i am focusing on the afghanistan national security forces. we are transitioning responsibility to the afghan government for afghanistan security. i have long believed that the most urgent need in afghanistan is to provide the training from

basic training to mentoring to side-by-side partnering on the battlefield along with the equipment and the other support elements to rapidly build the capabilities of the afghan army and police. an afghan surge should be our goal. the president has called for increased contributions from our nato allies. we need not only to have a nice -- afghan-ize but nato-ize. a plan is long overdue. the strategy also made clear that our commitment to the future of afghanistan requires action from the government of afghanistan been.

it means a serious anti- corruption efforts. it means national reconciliation policies and retention and support for thomas, confident ministry officials. president obama insists on holding president karazi to that pledge. this is a reasonable way to produce a sense of urgency in the afghan government that has been lacking up to now and is central to success. i believe the principal mission of u.s. troops increases in afghanistan should be to accelerate the transition to afghan forces taking the lead for providing afghan security. this is an important part of

the repos -- the approach outlined by the president. i have questions on whether the rapid deployment of a large number of u.s. combat forces without an adequate number of afghan security forces for our troops to partner with servers that mission. a critical component of transitioning to act and irresponsibility will be beyond the -- act of responsibility will be beyond the partners. that partner is vital to success in afghanistan and for us. the current shortfall is not a shortage of american combat troops. it is a shortage of afghan troops. in the key province, the ratio of u.s. troops to afghan troops is about five u.s. troops to one afghan soldier.

we are now partnered with about 2000 afghans. at the desired ratio is close to the opposite. three afghans for one u.s. soldier. we have enough troops to partner with more than 20,000 additional afghan troops. if so, doubling the number of u.s. troops in the south will only worsen a ratio in which our forces are ready are matched up with fewer afghan troops and they can and should partner with. general james conway said in

september, "if i could change only one thing it would be to have more afghan troops." a few days ago, he reiterated the point this way, "to have american marines standing on the corner in a key village is not nearly as effective as having an afghan policeman or an afghan soldier." it seems to me that the large influx of u.s. combat troops will put more u.s. marines on street corners. there are too few afghan partners alongside him. partnering with, equipping, and empowering afghan forces to provide security for their country will demonstrate our resolve and commitment to a stable future for afghanistan in the region. that should be the stated mission. troop increases should be judged

by whether they and fans that mission. senator mccain? >> thank you. by phil president obama has made the right decision to embrace a counterinsurgency strategy for afghanistan into resource it properly. i would have preferred that general mcchrystal receive the entire force he requested. i think that 30,000 additional u.s. troops plus greater force commitments from our allies will enable us to reverse the momentum. i support the president's decision betta i think it deserves the support of all americans both republicans and

democrats. i do not support and what concerns me greatly is the president's decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing forces from afghanistan. that sends the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies. a withdrawal date emboldened al qaeda and the taliban without dispiriting are at camp partners and making it less likely that they will with our allies to take our side in this fight. our commitment is not open ended. large numbers of u.s. combat troops will not remain there indefinitely. this war will one day and. it should and we have achieved

our goals. success is the real exit strategy. when the rules change, that is one our troops should start to return home with honor, not one minute longer or sooner and certainly not on some arbitrary date in july 200011. our enemies can exploit it, we can, and intimidate our friends. i am eager to hear from our witnesses how we can say that our withdrawal would begin in july 2011 the matter what. this arbitrary date will take into account conditions on the ground. that seems logically incoherent to me. i welcome some clarity on this matter.

another concern that i have is to do the civilian side. force is necessary to succeed in afghanistan. it is not sufficient i am confident in our military strategy and leadership. i believe our troops can do everything that general mcchrystal laid out in his assessment over the summer. i believe we can clear and hope. i'm concerned our allies do not have a unified plan to build and support our afghan partners. as they build their own nation and their own free institutions, i am also concerned by reports of divisions in our embassy and by major differences between our commander in our ambassador. we can only succeed in afghanistan if we have a joint civil military campaign plan unified at every level from top to bottom, much as the general

petraeus established in iraq during the search. i look forward to hearing what progress we are making on creating such a joint civil military effort. i have been critical of the president over the past several months. that is now behind us. our book is going forward must be on winning the war in afghanistan i emphasize winning a. this depends on the substance of our policy as a signal so we send to people in afghanistan. the president was wrong to signal our intention to leave afghanistan. we now have the right mission. we now have the right leadership. we now have a request for sufficient resources to succeed. our friends can know that we

will support them. our enemies know that we will defeat them. all can know that we are committed to the long term success of afghanistan and pakistan, stable states that can govern themselves, secure themselves, and sustain their and development. the the nature of our commitment to let afghanistan and pakistan will change over time, our commitment to their success will and door. we will indoor -- our commitment to their success commitmenwill . it will ensure that these countries never again serve as bases for attacks against american and our allies pitta americans need to know why winning this war is essential to our security. they need to know that things in

afghanistan will get worse before they get better. that -- casualty's will likely rise in the year to come. ultimately, we will succeed. i look to the present and our witnesses. we have effort to build bipartisan support. i will do everything in my power to make sure we win this war and not just ended. >> we will recognize secretary gates, hillary clinton, and then admiral mullin. >> i think the secretary of

state microphone is the only one working. perhaps she should be the only witness. [laughter] thank you for inviting us to testify today. last night president obama announced a more focused strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. i like to provide an overview of the strategic thinking behind this decision. in particular, the nexus among al qaeda, caliban, pakistan, and afghanistan. our objectives on how the strategy aims to accomplish them and the military force is required.

as the president for stated in march, the goal of the united states is to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda and prevent the return to both countries. brunn the effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to to this goal. they are reinforcing missions. they cannot be untethered from one another as much as we might wish to be the case. while al qaeda is under great pressure and dependent upon the caliban for sustainment, the sex of thesuccess of the taliban with them on the winning side of history. each benefit from the success and mythology of the other.

al qaeda leaders have stated this expansively. events has strengthened the extremists methodology and popular perceptions of view is winning and who is leading. but the lesson of the revival for al qaeda it is that time and will are on their side. they could regain their strength and achieved a victory as long as their senior leadership lives and can attract followers. rolling back the taliban is necessary if not sufficient to the altman defeat of al qaeda. one cannot separate the security situation in afghanistan. a nuclear arms nation now

targeted by extremists -- the two countries share in order of more than 1,500 miles. it led to the resurgence of the taliban. there are more sophisticated attacks in afghanistan. it would put more pressure on the pakistani government already under attack from groups operating on the border region. they have become a real threat to pakistan alone domestic peace and stability. there were escalating bombing attacks throughout the country. it is these attacks and that largely motivated the current

operations by the pakistani army. we know that the pakistan and taliban work with al qaeda. because of american withdrawal from the region', many pakistani people are skeptical that the united states is reliable, long- term, strategic partner. we must change that perception. failure and afghanistan would mean a talent in -- taliban takeover. taliban ruled areas could become a sanctuary for al qaeda as well as a staging area for research and militant groups on the offensive in pakistan. success in south and central asia by islamic extremists would beget success on other

fronts. it would strengthen the narrative, providing renewed opportunities for recruitment and more sophisticated operations. aided by the internet, many more followers to join the ranks. they can execute a tax. from unit to london to dinne-- m munich to london. this part of the world represents the efficent and -- epicenter of jihadist extremism. it caused the collapse. for them to be seen to defeat the sole remaining superpower in the same place would have severe consequences for the united

states in the world. some say this is similar to the domino timeframe that modeled the vietnam. we have very real and recent history that shows just what can happen in this part of the world where extremists have breathing space, safe havens, and governments supportive of their mission. less than five years after the last soviet tank crossed the bridge out of of afghanistan, islamic militants launched their first attack on the world trade center in new york. we cannot afford to make a similar mistake again. a stable security situation in afghanistan and pakistan, one that is sustainable, is vital to our national security. the current status quo in afghanistan, the slow but steady

deterioration of the security situation and growing influence of the taliban, is unacceptable. so to the status quo. it is a largely on government region in which the united states had little influence or ability to gain intelligence on the ground. the new strategic concept aims to reverse the taliban's momentum and reduce the strength of providing the time and space necessary for the afghans to develop enough security and government capacity to stabilize their own country. we will focus our resources for the population and allied military and civilian efforts accordingly with six primary objectives. reversing momentum -- disrupting

the taliban out site secured areas and preventing al qaeda from gaining sanctuary i. increasing the size and capability of the afghan national security forces and employing other local forces selectively to begin transitioning security responsibility fox to the afghan government. building the capacity of afghan government, particularly in key ministries this approach is not open ended. it is not necessary or feasible to create a centralized, western style afghan state. it has never been seen in that country. nor does it entail pacifying every village. it is a narrower focus tied more

tightly to our core goal of disrupting and in defeating al qaeda by building the capacity to the afghans. it will be measured by observable progress on clear objectives. the essence of our civil military plan is to clear, holt, build, and transfer. it is critical. in my view, it is achievable. this will occur district by district, province by province, dependent upon conditions on the ground. it will be similar to what we did in iraq. even after we transfer security responsibility to the afghans and draw down our combat forces, the united states will continue to support the development as an important

partner for the long haul. we will not repeat the mistakes of 1989 when we abandon the country to see it go into chaos and taliban hands. making the transition possible requires accelerating the development of larger and more capable afghan army and police during and since the partnering with forces, especially in combat. it means of achieving a better balance between national and local forces, increasing and unconventional warfare capabilities, in gauging communities to enlist more local security forces. it bolsters reintegration. at the strategic level, the plan will achieve a better balance between investment and the central government and seven national entities.

at the local and regional level, there will be a ship to work your existing traditional structures rather than building new ones. we must have a committed partner in the afghan government. that is one reason why there will be clear and definitive time frames for reviewing our and their progress. the night the states will commit an additional 30,000 troops for a surge of 18 or 24 months. it'll be deployed in concentrated in the southern and eastern parts of the country. the first of the forces will begin to arrive within two or three weeks. since taking office, president obama has committed nearly 52,000 additional troops to afghanistan for a total u.s. force of 100,000. we are looking to nato and other partners to send a parallel

international message of strong results. our allies must take the lead in focus their resources on the north and west to prevent the insurgencies in establishing a foothold. we will see 5000 or 7000 troops. we expected to share more of the burden. it is worth remembering that the security situation in afghanistan this not begin to approach the scale of violence that consumed iraq and confronted our forces there when i was confirmed as secretary of defense three years ago this week. with all the resources already committed, i believe the pieces are being put in place to make rail and measurable progress in afghanistan over the next 18 or 24 months. the president believes that in

the end we cannot defeat al qaeda and the toxic ideology without improving in stabilizing the security situation in afghanistan the decision offers the best possibility to decisively changed the momentum in afghanistan and fundamentally offered the strategic equation in pakistan and central asia. i ask for your full support of this decision. it will provide in the resources they need to be successful. it'll take more patience, perseverance, and sacrifice by the united states and allies. the heaviest burden will fall on the men and women who volunteer to serve their country in uniform. i know they will be will be on

the mission. >> secretary clinton? >> just turn it off. there you go. >> ok. thank you. i am grateful for this opportunity to testify before so many former colleagues and friends. my experience on this committee helped for my views on many of the issues facing our nation. it is a privilege to be here before you now. president obama presented the strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. secretary gates and i will prove providing good additional details. let me speak to you on a more

personal level. among a range of difficult choices, if this is the best way to protect our nation now and in the future. the extremists we are fighting have attacked us and our allies before. if we allow them access to the very same safe havens they used before 2001, they will have a greater capacity to regroup and attack again. they could drag an entire region into chaos. our leaders and afghanistan have reported the situation is serious and worsening. we agree. in the aftermath of december 11, i create with loved ones who were murdered. it was an attack on the constituents i represented. eyewitnesses the consequences of thousands of innocent families.

i feel a personal response ability to help protect our nation from such violence. the case for action against al qaeda and the allies has always been clear. the united states course of action has not. while our attention was focused elsewhere, the taliban gained momentum in afghanistan. the extremists thread runs a country with 175 million people, and nuclear arsenal, and a share of challenges. president obama called for a careful and thorough review of the strategy. i was proud to be part of that process which questioned every assumption into nothing for granted. our objectives are clear. we will work with the afghan and pakistani government to

eliminate safe havens for those plotting to attack us. we will help to stabilize the region that we believe is fundamental to our national security. we will develop a long-term, sustainable relationship with both pakistan and afghanistan so we do not repeat mistakes. the duration of our military presence is not open ended. our civilian commitments must continue even as our troops began and eventually to come home. accomplishing this mission and insuring the safety of american people will not be easy. it will mean sending more civilians and more assistance to afghanistan. the men and women carrying out this mission are not members of a letter items on a power point slide.

they are our friends and neighbors. we will be asking them and the american people to make extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security. i want to assure the committee that i take the oversight responsibilities so seriously. we will do everything we can to make sure their sacrifices are honored and make our nation safer. the situation in afghanistan and pakistan is serious. it is not as negative as frequently portrayed in public. and the beginning of president karazai's term has opened a new window of opportunity. we will continue to pursue them. in the inauguration speech, i witnessed his call for a new

compact with this country. he pledged to deliver for the people of this country. the words were long in coming up but will come. they must be met with action. we must hold the afghan government accountable for making good on the commitments. we will work to strengthen institutions on every level of afghan society. the president has outlined a time frame for a transition to afghan irresponsibility, something that the president assumed would happen and which we took as a very good sign of a renewed understanding of the necessity of afghan as asian -- afghanization.

they will have the capacity to start assuming ownership for defending their own country. as the president has said, we will execute the transition irresponsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground -- transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. it should be clear to everyone that unlike the past, and the united states and our allies had an enduring commitment to afghanistan, pakistan, and the region. our resolve is reflected in the commitment of truth and in the significant civilian commitment that will continue long after combat. that effort is already bearing fruit. experts are helping to craft a policy within government ministries fox. when our marines went into now

what this last july, we had civilians on the ground to coordinate assistance the next day. our coordination is growing even sworand stronger. on average, each of the civilians leverages 10 partners, ranging from locally employed staff to expert. it is a cliche to say we have our best people in these jobs. it happens to be true. when alice in kabul a few weeks ago, i met with an american colonel who told me that what he had thousands of outstanding soldiers under his command, and then had the 40 years of agricultural experience as a civilian serving alongside the battalion. he told me, "i am happy to

supply whatever support they need. but only do we have the right people to achieve our objectives, we have a strategy. we will be delivering high impact and bolstering the agricultural sector. this will create jobs and a we will support and asking and led effort to open the door to the taliban who renounced al qaeda and want to integrate into action society. all afghans should have the choice to pursue a better future if they do so peacefully, respect the human rights of their citizens, and reintegrate into their society.

a regional diplomacy complements this approach. we believe a strong pakistan must be a key partner in the fight against violent extremism. people in pakistan are coming to do that we do share a common enemy pitta i heard it repeatedly during my recent -- enemy. i heard this repeatedly during my recent visit. we will do so by demonstrating a commitment to pakistan that has been questioned by the pakistani senate has been a we will make

sure the people of pakistan of the we wish to be their partner for the long term. we intend to do all we can to bolster their future. we are not one to be facing these challenges alone. we share the responsibility of governments around the world. i'll go to brussels tomorrow. we expect the general to have an announcement today about the progress we are making in that effort. ambassador holbrooke is already there. where as in the community to expand this support to pakistan. our objectives are shared by people in government across the world. we are reaching out to muslims everywhere. we face a range of difficult choices in afghanistan and pakistan.

the president's plan represents the best way we knew to protect our nation today or in the future. the task we face is as complex as any national security challenge in our lifetime. we will not succeed if people view this as irresponsibility of a single party, agency, or a single country. we owe it to the civilians who will face these dangers to come together as americans. we have to accomplish this mission. >> thank you. >> thank you for your time today. i support fully and without hesitation the president's decision. i appreciate the opportunity to contribute to what i believe was a healthy and productive

discussion. i have seen my share of the internal debates. i can honestly say that i do not recall an issue so thoughtfully considered as this one. every military leader was given voice throughout this process and everyone of us used it. we now have a strategy more properly matched to the situation on the ground in afghanistan and resources matched to that strategy, particularly with regard to [unintelligible] given the stakes in afghanistan, as labette as our partners, i believe the time we took was well worth it. secretary clinton ingates have already walk you through the large policy issues in question.

i will not repeat them for n. it does three things. by providing more discreet objectives, it offers better guidance to commanders about how to employ their forces. they will still to shrugged and defeat al qaeda. they will prevent afghanistan from becoming a safe haven. they will strive to protect the afghan people who remain the center of gravity. there will pursue major element of a campaign designed by general mcchrystal, which involves at least some measure of active counter-terrorism operations. now they will tailor this by focusing on key population areas, increasing pressure on al qaeda poser leadership, working to streamline and accelerate the growth of confident afghan national security forces.

our strategy is about providing breathing space for the afghans to secure their own people and to stabilize their own country. it is about partnering and mentoring just as much if not more than fighting. where once we believed it meant doing it ourselves, we now know it cannot truly or permanently be done by anyone other than the afghans themselves. a third are partnered with afghan forces. i expect that number to rise significantly. secondly, this new strategy gives commander on the ground the resources and the support they need to reverse the momentum of the taliban insurgency. it to accomplish more limited objectives.

this region is the epicenter of global islamic extremism. it is the place from which we were attacked on 9/11. should we be hit again, it is the place from which i am convinced the planning and funding will emanate. al qaeda may be the architect of such an attack, but the taliban will be the bricklayers. though hardly a uniformed body, taliban troops are more sophisticated and boulder. we saw that in the valley where they attacked coalition outpost using what i would call almost conventional small unit tactics. they are fighters are better organized than they were one year ago. they experience a record high violence over the summer. through intimidation, if they have established a shadow

government across the country, coercing the support of many locals in shunting the authorities of elected leaders. we believe they have achieved a dominant influence. to say there is no serious threat of afghanistan falling once again, ignores the audacity of even the insurgencies most public statements. the taliban would not tolerate the presence of al qaeda. that is to ignore both the recent past and the evidence we see every day between these factions. the cost of failure is agreed. that is why the decision for an extended surge to let afghanistan of 30,000 additional forces is so important.

it gets the most force into the fight as quickly as possible, giving general mcchrystal everything he needs in 2010 to gain the initiative. it validates our approach. it offers our troops the best possible chance to except security conditions for the afghan people to see our commitment to the feature, at to see his promise reborn, for the afghan to understand they will month take back afghanistan. for those beyond afghanistan who support the taliban, they could realize the facility of their pursuit. troops have already made a huge

difference in the southern valley. no amount of troops and no amount of time will ever be enough to complete the achieve success in such a fight. they simply must be accompanied by good governance and healthy, public administration. this is the area of my greatest concern. i look forward to looking with the karazai government. we must have the support of international community's as well. the strategy recognizes the broad based approach to regional problems. he does not view afghanistan in isolation. he has called for stronger and more productive cooperation with pakistan.

the support remains vital to our ability to eliminate safe havens. we welcome renewed emphasis on securing more civilian expertise to the effort. more contributions by nato nations and a real plan. his is a more balanced, flexible, and achievable strategy and we have had in the past. it is based on real possibility. speaking for the men and women who must execute it and whose families have front of the stress of combat, i support his decision and appreciate his leadership. thank you. >> thank you so much. we are going to have a six minute round and will ask members to strictly adhere to that. you will all have an opportunity

to ask questions. >> there has been some confusion about whether the beginning date for troop reductions is set for july 2011 with the pace of those reductions being condition based or whether the 2011 july starting date itself is dependent on conditions on the ground. which is it? >> mr. chairman, it is july 2011 is when we expect the transition process to begin. our view is -- quite conditions based? >> no, certification. >> due to the partnering ratio,

there are over 10,000 u.s. troops in the province and southern afghanistan. there partnered with only 1500 or so afghan soldiers. the partnering goal of the united states is almost the reverse. paraphrasing the national security council director, the three afghan to one u.s. ratio helps prevent afghan units from relying too much on the u.s. unit to the detriment of the afghan units development. the current number of troops could and should be partnering with 20,000 or so afghan troops. we have more than enough for

that purpose. nor do we expect 20,000 troops to be assigned to partner with us. there will be 10 dozen more afghan troops deployed to hellman in the coming years, to be divided equally between u.s. and british forces. for our members correct? >> let me defer to admiral mullen. >> i think your numbers are correct. >> in terms of what we expect to be deployed? >> yes, sir, that sounds about right. >> at the day for the president at the meeting is today -- i thought i heard the president

say at the meeting yesterday that we would not have arturs clear an area unless they could turn the cleared area over to the afghans. did i hear him correctly? how is that possible given the costly afghan forces? >> let me start. first of all, as i have indicated, accelerating the growth of the national and afghan army. we are also looking at local forces as well, partnering with local security forces. there is more than just the afghan police and army in this mix. the plan clearly is the we will

not transition security irresponsibility to the afghan until they have the capacity to be able to manage the security situation on their own. the reality is set the circumstances in iraq differ from province to province. the difficulty will depend on the circumstances in each of these areas. in sum, it will take your afghans. a big part of this is additional training will put more and more afghans into the site and into a position where they can take responsibility for security.

one of the purposes of the u.s. going in with additional forces is not just to partner with the afghans or to train the afghans, but to degrade the capabilities. you have a situation where the capabilities are rising at a time when our combat forces are degrading the taliban. >> do i understand that there will be situations where our troops will be clearing in the area and not have afghans available yet? >> i think it is fair. if i could just briefly. when general do with general mcchrystal showed up, there were virtually no units.

-- when general mcchrystal showed up, and there were virtually no units. >> not the three-one ratio. >> we are not there yet. this is in training in fighting. b>> what will be the afghan army projected size by july 2011? >> the goal by december of 2010 is 134,000. >> my question is july of 2011. >> about 170,000. >> thank you. i think it is important to tell the american people and it is likely that casualty's will go up during the course of this troop increase. >> [unintelligible] i was very clear about the

potential there. casualty's would go up. i didn't think there is any question that that is part of the risk associated with this additional trick. >> i think the american people need to understand it. but i agree with you. >> in answer to the question, he said there was a condition based withdrawal plan for july 2011. he said no. would we withdraw our troops based on conditions on the grounds are on an arbitrary date regardless of conditions? >> we are talking about the beginning of a process, not the end of the process. approximately 60% of the can stand today is not controlled by

the taliban or has significant influence. >> my question is, will the date of withdrawal of 2011 be based on an arbitrary date of july 2011 regardless of conditions on the ground? >> i think it is a judgment that we will be in a position where we will be able to begin the transition. >> let's suppose you are not. let's suppose that conditions would jeopardize the mission. would we do it anyway? the president has indicated that we will have a thorough review of how we are doing. i think we will be in a position to a body weight whether we can begin that. >> the president announced he

would begin withdrawing with a hard date. i do not know why it was particular the pit. he has announced that. he said conditions on the ground. those are too incompatible statements. you either have a winning strategy and want its exceeded we withdraw or we will have a date with drop of july to the smell of them. wood is it? it is one or the other. -- date the withdrawal of july 2011. what is it? it is one or the other. >> i do not think that is the key factor here. we will have a thorough review

of december 2010. if it appears the strategy is not working, then we will take a hard look at the strategy itself. >> i say with respect, i think the american people need to know whether we will begin in 2011 and conditions or right or whether we will just be withdrawn no matter what. >> our plan is that we will begin the transition in local areas in july of 2011. we will evaluate in december 2010 whether we believe we will be able to meet that objective. >> i think that has to be made very clear. right now the expectation level is that we will be withdrawn regardless of conditions on the grounds. i think that the run regression to give our friends and enemies.

. . >> is general mcchrystal was the view that these additional forces will allow them to have us in the right direction. we will have solid indicators at that point. obviously the july 2011 date is

the day we start transferring responsibility and transitioning. it is not a day that we are leaving, and the president also said that will be based on conditions on the ground. >> and it makes no sense for him to have announced the date. but i am sure we will continue this discussion. secretary clinton, i appreciate your statement, but i would like a lot more specifics. we know that there are divisions within the embassy and kabul. we know that cables were leaked that the ambassador there was against any increases in troops there. we know that relations within the embassy -- we also know that the ability will of state department personnel has been significantly limited, as it was prior to the surge in iraq because the environment is not safe for them to go out and operate. i have great confidence in the

military operational planning. i am confident it can succeed. but as i said earlier, i do not see the bill component id, and i would like for you to submit to this committee a very specific plan, just as we are receiving a very specific military plan, on exactly how we are going to achieve the build part of it, which i think there is an adequate model for it in the case of iraq. appreciate your statements, and i agree with you about the quality of personnel. i have yet to see a comprehensive, convincing plan to implement the essential civil side of any successful surge. >> senator mccain, first let me say we are more than happy to submit a plan. we have obviously been working with our committee of jurisdiction and authorization on a very close, ongoing basis, and will be happy to share a lot

of the information with you. we would welcome your response and your advice. i have to say, however, that the process we engaged in solicited opinions, and i thought it was a great tribute to the president and general jones that the white house ran a process that actually sought out and made it clear that diversity of opinion was welcome. i thought it was useful to hear from a variety of sources. it would not surprise you that people had different opinions, based on their perspective. as admiral mullen just eloquently said, the president has made a decision. there is absolute unity and a commitment to carrying out the mission. we will be happy to share the specifics of that with you. >> thank you very much, and they

all the witnesses, who we appreciate enormously their contributions to our country. >> we are going to take advantage of the presence of a quorum here to take one minute to consider the 190038 pending military nominations as well as the civilian nomination of clifford stanley, terry yonkers to be assistant secretary of the air force, and lawrence romo to be secretary of the service. all in favor say aye. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i knew you would appreciate that intervention.

>> thank you for your excellent opening statements and for all the hard and effective work that you did in support of the policy that the president announced last night. i agree with what senator mccain said, that the president has made the right decision in embracing a counterinsurgency strategy for afghanistan and resources get properly. in making this decision, president obama has respectfully disagree with a majority of members of his own political party, according to every public opinion poll i have seen. therefore, i think it's fair to say that the president has quite literally put our national security interests ahead of partisan political interest. i hope that fact will inspire and encourage a majority of members of both political parties to do the same, and to thereby show that america's political leadership is still capable of suspending

partisanship at the water's edge when our security and our troops are on the line. as chairman of the homeland security committee, i am very grateful to president obama for arguing so effectively last line that the war in afghanistan is a war of necessity because it's outcome is inseparable from our security here at home. that is why i believe there is no substitute for victory over the islamic extremists and terrorists in afghanistan or the necessity must not just be fought, it must of necessity be one. last night in the most controversial paragraph of the speech, he said we will begin the transfer of our forces out of afghanistan in july of 2011. that troubled me when i heard it, but then the president added words that reassured me, which were that we will execute this

transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. this morning, secretary gates, in your opening statement you add more detail, and admiral mullen did, too, to the mode by which we will begin this transition in july 2011. i was particular struck that you refer to it as a transfer of security responsibility, and you also say that it will be very much like what we did in iraq, that there are international security forces provided overwatch, first at the technical and then the strategic level. secretary gates, as i read your words today, i want to ask if i am correct in concluding that will definitely begin in july 2011 is a transfer of security responsibility to the afghans,

but may not include immediately a withdrawal of our forces from afghanistan. >> that is correct. i think that as we turn over more districts and more provinces to afghan security control, much as we did with the provincial iraqi control, that there will be a thinning of our forces and a gradual drop down. i would remind folks here, since this is the second surge i have been up here defending, that the surge in iraq lasted 14 months. january 2007 to march 2008, and frankly, it was pretty apparent to the taliban, or to our adversaries in iraq, rather, all along, that that was a very tentative situation, because we were up here defending it practically every day.

so the notion that our adversaries in afghanistan are not aware of the debates in this country in the debates in europe and elsewhere is unrealistic. they know these things, but the reality is, this is going to be a process. i think it has much in common with the way that we began to drop down in -- we began to draw down in iraq. >> we are likely to transfer security responsibilities to the afghans in the areas that are most able, most uncontested at the beginning, and we will probably put our troops backed away is just to see how that works, rather than taking them out of the country. >> we are not just going to throw these guys into the swimming pool and walk away. the reality is, first of all, those transfers are going to take place in the most uncontested places in afghanistan, so just as in iraq,

you may have some districts and provinces being transferred to afghan security responsibility, and at the same time have extraordinarily heavy combat going on in other provinces around the country, which is exactly what we saw in iraq. >> am i right that in the policy the president announced last night, which does begin the transfer security responsibility of july 2011 to the afghans, there is no deadline for the end of that transfer? it will be based on conditions on the ground. >> it will be based on conditions on the ground, but by the same token, we want to communicate to the afghans, this is not an open ended commitment on the part of the american people and our allies around the world. >> i agree with that. >> we need to build a fire under them to get them to do the kind ofjár training and so on for their forces that allow us to make this transition.

let me draw another analogy to iraq. in iraq, once it was clear the surge was working, it was pretty plain that the iraqis wanted us out about as fast as possible. the security agreement and everything flowed from that. that is not entirely clear in afghanistan. they live in a very rough neighborhood. we have a balancing act here and the centerpiece of our debate for the last several months is, how you did the afghans to begin to step up the responsibility for their own future, there on security in a way that allows us to have confidence that they will not once again become the safe haven for al qaeda? the hearing now that balance in terms of how you incentivize and get a sense of urgency to the afghan, and at the same time signal results to our adversaries, was the tough part of this for us. >> i appreciate that answer.

>> to me that is the essence of moving down the road to victory in afghanistan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was going to start out with the in that status, that it has been pretty well covered right now. and probably speaking on behalf of all the members up here, because the troops themselves, they want to win, and they did not like to even talk about a withdrawal date and that type of thing. let me just ask you a quick question, admiral mullen. most of the time, commanders talk about different options and courses of action. they talk about the risk involved and that the risk is

either usually low, medium, or high. was there a risk level associated the general mcchrystal's 40,000 increase? >> broglie moderate, but the real critical path here is the development of the afghan security forces, which we all think was high risk, particularly on the police side. that is one of the reasons he shifted the partner in, and one of the reasons we are devoting our best people, best leaders, resources to accelerating that so that we can do what the secretary of defense -- >> i will pursue that in just a minute. i would assume that the number 30,000 would be a little higher risk than the moderate risks. >> what i said in my state is, general mcchrystal is going to get these forces this year, as fast as we can get in there. the biggest concern is to reverse the momentum. he thinks he can do it with

these forces. >> i was privileged to be with general jones the last week he was on the job over there, and i know some of the differences between afghanistan and iraq. i have been asked a lotl%:kñ ofe time, if we are looking at, during the peak of the surge in iraq, about 165,000 americans, and when you start with 68,000 and add 30,000 to it, you are talking about 100,000. why does it take fewer of our troops in afghanistan relative to the size it is in iraq? >> one of the great strengths of the review was to focus the objectives specifically, and to focus the objectives on key population centers. the troops general mcchrystal has asked for and that will add up to about 100,000 do that in

key areas that in particularly in the pashtun belt, where he believes he can turn this around. while the ratio is a guide, it is not sacrosanct. he is able to focus where we need to focus to get at this insurgency. actually, the same was true in iraq. it is just been at this need with respect to these ratios is about right for afghanistan. >> that is one of the reasons why they added contributions from our allies and partners are so important. basically we want them to take responsibility for the northern and western parts of afghanistan so that we can concentrate and focus our efforts in the southern and eastern parts of the country. >> secretary gates, i think one thing that all of you sit in your opening statements is we need of better participation by

the iraqis and by the non american coalition. we all agree with that. i happened to be over there in 2003 when we were turning over the training of the ana to the afghans. it was the oklahoma 45th guard unit that was in charge of that. they contend that they are great warriors, and yet you look around and see so many of these young, healthy afghans that are walking the streets who ought to be in the military. what can we do differently to encourage greater participation with the ana? >> one of the things they are doing that makes a real difference is significantly increasing the pay, both of the police and the army. the reality is that based on the information available to us, in

many instances the taliban actually pays more than the afghan government. one of the things, particularly in terms of retention, is to increase their pay. i think most people believe that that will have a real impact. >> the secretary talked a retention, recruiting, and incentivizing that from a paid standpoint being critical. the other fundamental difference, since general mcchrystal got there, is this partnership peace. what i think you saw was mentoring and training teams. this is partnering, and is getting everybody off their bases and out in the communities. those two differences are fundamental. >> the question about what we do different in terms of encouraging more of that non military forces. i was pleased with the statement the president made when he talked about the fact that he

had talked to some of the nato allies before coming out with this. i wish she had done the same thing on the site in poland. by doing that, will it encourage them, make them feel more a part of this? is that a good move? >> absolutely. >> what else can we do to encourage more of the non american coalition? >> secretary clinton has been talking to her counterparts. i have been talking to my counterparts. we are hearing at 1000 here, a hundred their, and so on. i think we will make the goal, and as somebody who has been critical of the allies and was once derided by my british colleagues for megaphone diplomacy, because i was giving him such a hard time on this, we have to realize that the non u.s. forces have increased in the last two years from about 17,000 to 18,000 troops to almost 44,000.

with this ad, we will be at nearly 50,000 non-u.s. troops in afghanistan. that is a pretty significant commitment. >> for the record, madam secretary, you made the statement about karzai in the speech he made. i hope it is not just empty words. for the record, if you would give us your indication, your feelings about what he can do now to accomplish what you had suggested. >> i certainly will, but if i could just quickly add, one of the most important parts of his speech was his assertion that afghan forces would be taking responsibility for many important parts of the country within three years, and that they would be responsible for the entire country within five years. that is very much along the lines of the kind of partnering in transition that we think is realistic. we just have to keep the feet to the fire and keep pushing it

forward. >> there has been much made about this withdrawal goal as arbitrary. based on the advice of general mcchrystal and your it buys about expectation of what the situation on the ground would be in 2011, given these additional resources and the change of policy, is that correct? >> i have a very clear view, and i think soda's general petraeus and mcchrystal, that by mid 2011 we will know whether we were going to succeed here are not. that is in something we have discussed and we agree on. that is why getting these forces in so quickly is so important to try to reverse this thing. some of it is based on the fact that marines have been in helmand this year, so marines

will have been in one of the toughest places for three fighting seasons, and with the additional forces, we think we will have very strong indicators about how this is going, and our ability to transfer and transition at that point. >> so you would not describe the day as arbitrary? >> no sir, it was not arbitrary. that said, with the president also said is it would be responsible and it would be based on conditions. all of us can look out and speculate what those conditions will be, but i think we have to be careful about that. that is the goal right now. >> i would just clarify that july 2011 date was chosen because it will be two years after the marines arrived in halmand. >> and giving them the fighting opportunities for one of the better terms, the fighting obligations are fighting

challenges. >> the issue of the deadline also raises the issue of iraq. there is the deadline there, and that is a legal deadline, which i understand could not be changed without the provision of the iraqis deteriorating. >> all of our combat forces are to be out by the end of august 2010, and all forces out by the end of 2011. we do have some flexibility in terms of the pacing of the withdrawals between now and the end of august, but even with the hiccups are the elections, at this point general odierno does not see the need to alter the pacing of the drawdowns in iraq. >> that was agreed to by the bush administration as a hard deadline without conditions, is

that correct? >> that is correct. >> it took time, but from your comment this morning, and since the time was well spent. one aspect of this was it would not have had the flow of forces as quickly as the final plan adopted by the present, is that correct? >> in particular, with respect to the nato forces that are not committed yet, we would hope to -- we are hoping they would be available more quickly and that we will do everything we can to get as much capability in as quickly as possible. it is the accelerated to some degree, but i do not> i would add that the final component of his original request, the final brigade

combat team would not have arrived in afghanistan until the summer of 2011. my own personal recommendation was, there is no need to commit to that, since it is so far in the future. so to admiral mullen's point earlier, fundamentally, general mcchrystal is getting more troops faster than under the original plan. >> and under -- let me just rephrase that. this process, as you have suggested, has produced, in your mind, a better proposal across the board than originally was submitted by the individual components, the ambassador, general mcchrystal, etc. >> i am convinced everybody in the process feels that way. one of the concerns that i had coming out of the march decisions was that they were interpreted very broadly in the

press and elsewhere as a commitment to full scale nation- building and creating a strong central governments in kabul, and brought understandable skepticism over such broad objectives. it sounded very open ended. one of the principal components of the dialogue over the last three months is, how do we refine and narrow the mission to make it achievable and achieve the objectives in terms of our own security? >> some of the criticism of even talking about a date, regardless of whether it is a hard, unconditional withdrawal as in iraq, were those of the president, is that it would emboldened the enemy on one hand, or on the other hand, they would lie low and wait us out. strikes me as that the taliban has been emboldened quite aggressively the last several years without any kind of

deadline. if they see it out, what will you do if they simply gave up the operational space to us for 18 months or two years? >> we certainly would welcome them not being active for the next 18 months, because it would give us an open field running with our allies and the afghans to build capacity. and you make the point, we are already in the situation in which they are emboldened, and in which they are being aggressive. where they have the momentum right now, so it is not clear to me what more they could do than they are doing right now. the forces we are sending and are intended in the first instance, as the admiral has said, to reverse the momentum and deny them the ability to control territory. >> thank all of you for your presentations this morning and for your service to the country. we only have one commander in chief, and i want to be supportive. i think this plan is within the

framework of something i think can be affected. i intend to support you can examine it as we go forward to make sure that we are fulfilling our role here in congress as oversight and responsibility to our constituents. i want to thank you for your presentations. secretary gates, we talked early this year abouttoo grandiose expectations about a country that is as poor as afghanistan. you recognized that in your answer to our questions, and i'd like to pursue that a little bit. what can we realistically expect, and how can we create stability and order in afghanistan as soon as possible, so that we can reduce of our

troops as soon as possible for that country. i am hearing a commitment to an afghan national force, which i assume is commanded from the central government inkabul. you did indicate in your statement that you would want to engage committees to enlist more local security forces to protect their own territory. i heard the former secretary on television talk about the need for local militias. i see in an op ed and "the "washington journal" as saying that afghans for centuries have been governed loosely through the social compact between all the ethnic groups under a sovereign king, so again, how do

you envision transitioning to local security forces, and to what extent must those forces be directly the local? >> the balance we have to strike, and i have believed ever since i got this job that we have been too focused on the central government in kabul and not enough on the provinces and the districts and the tribes. the key here is a community security organizations that are willing to work with the government in kabul and that do not:asíñ become the militias for

warlords. the balance we are trying to strike, and what general mcchrystal cares about a lot, as does everybody else, it's how we encourage these local policing functions? some of the efforts i have seen where they recruit locals and the tribal elders are telling me that the roads that have been closed by the taliban for years have been reopened by these mobile groups, but they are within the framework of the provincial governor and the district leadership, so that they are not operating independently, working for warlords. the during out how to encourage that kind of activity and build on a, but keep it within the framework of people who are in covering positions and not just independent warlords is the key to that effort. that kind of sub national effort i think ultimately will

play an important role in all this. >> the governor still appoints the commanders of the national guard in america, and i think there is a sense of loyalty and fierce commitment to local afghanistan that we may not be fully respecting. i think you are on the right track with that thought. one of the generals who i met in the pentagon recently had a picture of one of the local officials on his wall, and he was very impressed with a very strong leader who was doing very good work. i am not sure how well he would perform if everything had to be run through the national government. >> i would just add, i think that one of the keys here, in a

country that is as rural and tribal as afghanistan, one of the challenges in recruiting people for the army and the police is getting them to leave their local area, and that is why i think these local security activities, if we can work with the afghans to keep have such promise, because these guys are basically protecting their own turf. >> i cannot agree more. they can be paid what for them would be a good wage, but far less than it would cost to have american soldier there. mr. secretary, i regret to have to raise the problem with the tanker competition. i noticed that northrop grumman team has announced a concern so great that they are announcing they may pullout from the competition.

a number of serious changes were made in rfp, each one of those tilted against a transformational aircraft were tilted against a larger aircraft, an aircraft that could provide more cargo capacity and other capabilities. the initial rfp was received with very great concern by the northrop team, and well they could, because it is quite different on the differentrfp. there is no doubt about that. all the change is tilted in the way i have mentioned. my question briefly to you is, do you believe that competition is important in this aircraft for the defense department and the war fighter, and number two, will you consider discussing some of these matters and be open to changing and rfp it is

not fair and does not do the job that you need for the defense department? as a final decision been made to make absolutely no changes in this entire process of discussion. >> we promised a fair and highly transparentps3d process. we believe that the rflp is even-handed. we are in a comment period, and we have received a lot of comments both from the competitors and from the congress and others. the commentsperiod is coming to a close. if we were totally locked into not changing anything, we cannot have gone through the comment period. we will look at the comments

that have been made and make a judgment at that point. we believe that both the principal competitors are highly qualified, and we would like to see competition continue in this process. >> thank you for your public service. theduring the 1970's and 1980'si had the privilege of serving with congressman charlie wilson in the house of representatives. mr. secretary, i am so happy to see in your statement, and i quote you, we will not repeat the mistakes of 1989 when we abandoned the country, only to see it descended to civil war and then into taliban hands.

it was charlie wilson at that time who singularly had been in large part responsible for us getting in in the first place, that fought us getting out. so thank you for stating the united states policy as strongly as you have. i am going to ask you and secretary clinton a couple of questions that i think for the long term, other1zo than the poy that was announced last night by the president with regard to the military activities, for the long term, we have got to integrate the military with the other agencies of government to help stabilize the country. for example, the congress has provided our commanders in the field with the commanders emergency response funds, to

quickly initiate reconstruction projects and provide immediate assistance to the afghan communities. after they have actually finished their combat. but we do not seem to have done a great job, and how you move from the pose conflict reconstruction projects, often overseen by the military, to the long term development projects overseen by civilians? i wish you all would address our defense and state working together to make that transition for the long term in afghanistan more seamless. secretaire clinton, the state department has undertaken a major review of u.s. assistance programs, including the

agricultural assistance, particularly with regard to malnutrition as well as alternate livelihood's to growing the poppies. the u.s. has tended to favor large development contracts using third country nationals instead of investing in the afghans themselves. the grass-roots efforts that employ afghans, and therefore providing them with the skills and assisting in getting their crops to market. if you would sh![t with the committee about your reviewd;ñ f the agricultural assistance and how we are going to work to make it more effective, as you and defense work together, please. >> first i would say that this

situation in afghanistan has been personally of interest to me, having worked with charlie wilson back in the 1980's, which was always an interesting experience. i think first of all, the specific answer to your question is, ambassador eikenberry and general mcchrystal are as we speak working on their joint civil military campaign plan, which i think will establish the basis for the kind of transition that you were talking about. but i would tell you one of the obstacles, at least in my opinion, from observing, is that the department of state does not have the kind of flexibility in the way that it spends money and the ability to do so quickly and

make commitments quickly and have agility because of the number of restrictions and processes that they have to go through with respect to their funds. frankly, i think one of the things that the funds we learned both in and stand and iraq is that that kind of flexibility has been a huge asset for the united states in both places. >> center nelson, let me start by saying it has been a real privilege working with secretary gates in the defense department in trying to figure out how to have a more integrated civilian military strategy. secretary gates has been one of the best advocate that the state department and u.s. a id have for increasing our funding, our personnel, our flexibility so that we do have the resources

and capacity to be quickly responsive. what we have done in the last 10 months is to investigate very thoroughly what was on the ground in afghanistan, and we did not particularly come away impressed. as i said in my testimony, there were a little over 300 civilians, many of them were on six month rotations. he looked at their in country time, a lot of them spent time out of the country. they did not have well-defined missions. most of our civilian aid going into afghanistan had been contracted out without adequate oversight or accountability. we stopped all contracts going into afghanistan and began doing a complete scrub of them. i am not saying that we have yet perfected our oversight but we have been working very hard to improve it dramatically. we are strongly supporting the

special inspector general. we would like to learn from the mistakes that are being made in a timely way, rather than waiting as we did in iraq and being told that we wasted tens of billions of dollars, which is just unacceptable. we also began to recruit civilians who were well suited for the jobs we needed. there was a tendency in the past for both iraq and afghanistan to basically tell foreign service officers, civil service officers in both state and usaid that if they went and spent their six months in one of those places, they would have the advantage of getting the next best assignment. if you wanted to end up in paris, you go to baghdad for six months, whether your experience and expertise was needed or not. we have painstakingly under the leadership of the deputy secretary matched each individual to the job that was

required. we will triple the numbers that we have on the ground by early january. we have also required all of our civilians to train at camp canterbury in indiana, where our military members train -- membersatterbury. i think that we are learning a lot of lessons as we go, but you put your finger on one of our biggest problems. the funds that are acceptable to our military forces both in and immediately after combat operations are a tremendous tool for doing projects or winning the allegiance. it is even being used as it was in iraq for enticing people off

the battlefield, as you know. there is nothing comparable on the civilian side. we have to requisition money. a young captain can access the funds in a matter of hours. a rule of law specialist has to wait weeks if not months to get a project approved. if we are going to be successful and be the kind of partners that our military needs, we have to have more tools. we are getting more resources, but the budget situation is going to be very tight, as everybody knows. ,+ñwhether our civilian personnl will have the resources they need to be the partners they are required is going to be challenging. we will come with a very specific set of requests, but the final point i would make is that we have civilians in the

state department serving all over the world in very dangerous settings. they are in conflict areas like eastern, go without any security support. -- like eastern congo. we tried to take additional measures to make sure that our people can get around, but as senator mccain said, it is very difficult because of the security situation. what we are doing is partnering more by embedding our civilians with our troops. that carries a mixed message, as you might guess, because we are trying to have a civilian face on it, but we have to have enough security to the ocean. this is a highly complex assessment. we send individuals on the civilian side. the defense department since

units, a battalion, and brigades. we are trying to do something that has never been done before, and we need the help and resources that are required. >> since we have to be successful at the end of this trial time, we look forward to that appropriation request, madam secretary. we will see if we can act expeditiously on it. >> thanks to all three of you for your leadership at this very critical time in the history of the world, not just our country. secretary gates, i thoughtéíhrfe president did a good job last night of laying out the scenario as well as the way forward. however, having just heard your opening statement, i thought you were much stronger and much more powerful. i hope that you will carry the message you brought to9,gñ this committee to our friends in

afghanistan as well as pakistan. as she said, the perception among pact has got to be that we are there. the perception among the afghans has got to be that we are going to stay there for the long term. otherwise, as one of the taliban, and it in the afghan press when i was over there last week over thanksgiving, that of the president comes out and says that in 2013 the u.s. is out of here, then we are going to sit back and just wait until 2013. we all know that is the case, so you are exactly right. i hope you will take that message to our folks in both afghanistan and pakistan at the leadership level. admiral mullen, you made a comment i want to drill down on for a second. á&óm÷he said we will know by mi1 if we are going to be successful.

let's assume we are growing to be successful, that general clark is doing well, that the pacts are stepping up in a greater fashion and helping us out. what does this mean, with the president having said we are going to start bringing our troops home in 18 monthspbp%s? what does that mean if we are successful with respect to bring home of troops? >> you very accurately captured the overall situation. we have a new government, and newly elected president in afghanistan. we have great commanders on the ground. we have an increased level of support, not just in terms of numbers, but really support from our nato allies. we have a very unpopular insurgency with respect to the

afghan people. there are great opportunities here over the next 18-24 months. one of the reasons is so important to get these troops there, as i have said before, is to turn this insurgency around. general mcchrystal and general petraeus and i believe we can do that over the course of the next 18-24 months. that will then provide an opportunity to get the transition as far as security responsibility and then in our forces to start debt. is veymó difficult to know exactly what the conditions are or will be, but if we get this right, it will provide as an opportunity to do that, which is why on the other side, if we are unable to do that by then, we have to reassess our strategy. >> what i am hearing is that there is flexibility in that

time line based on success or lack thereof. >> i think the time line is clear. the flexibility is in where we transition, where we turn over responsibility. this is something we all understand, and we think we will be able to do that. it is difficult to predict exactly where it is going to occur right now. >> if i might just add, i appreciated your comments about the longer-term. what i am about to state is just my opinion, because this was not a part of our dialogue over the past two or three months, or not a significant part of it. in my mind, i think that particularly if the afghans want us to, we need to think in terms of a very long term of willingness to work with the afghans in terms of military training, in terms of equipping the kind of long-term partnership we have with many countries around the world, where we have a certain military

presence in that country, but it is not a combat presence. it is a training and equipping and that kind of role, but one where we are clearly seen as their continuing partner. that would be my personal opinion of how i would see this unfolding along turn, after are principally gone from afghanistan. >> i appreciate that, and my worry is that the headline in the islamabad press today is that the president is sending 30,000 troops there and they are coming out in 18 months. that is why i think it is important that you carried the message of exactly what we mean by that 18 months. secretary clayton, i have not always been a fan of the work that usaid has done, but i have been afghanistan not just last thursday but six months ago

also, and had the opportunity to visit with your folks. i would have to say they are doing an amazing job over there with respect to educating children. we have gone from 900,000 to 6 million. it is because of flat a.i.d. has done and the security given by the military. i think education is the biggest issue we have got long term. i told your folks that while we are surging troops, and we assume that we knew the other day what the president might say, and he did, there also needs to be a surge on the civilian side. you have indicated that you are p.ussing of those --plussing of those folks. i wonder what is going to happen in 18 months. security in afghanistan has to be the way forward not just from

the military standpoint, but your folks on the ground. the state department civilians have to have security in order to be able to improve the lives of the afghans. i would just like your comment on whether or not you think the levels you are talking about are enough, or are you going to ask for more resources for more people? where you see the way forward? >> thank you for those very kind words, which are so well deserved by our people on the ground in afghanistan and elsewhere. they are really responding to the mission and working extremely hard, but of course they have to do so within a secure environment. our civilians are out around the country. they are also in kabul working with government ministries. we are certifying ministries to determine which ones are a transparent enough to receive

additional funds from us. so they are truly working at all levels of the afghan government and in many different sectors of society. but security is a key element s to whether they can be effective. a lot of our civilian workers are veterans of other very difficult security environments. they are willing to go places that a lot of folks are not, and i give them great credit for that. i think we just have to come to you with our best estimate as to what will be required to have the kind of civilian upsurge you just referred to. as we put additional troops in, we want to have more civilians embedded with them. we want to have them right there on the ground when combat is over to begin the building process, a partner in with their civilian counterparts. we are tripling the number that we found when we got there, and we are changing their mission

and requiring much more of them. the numbers are going to have to grow if we expect to deliver on what is required. >> you have an amazing pr team that is doing great work. >> let me add my appreciation to the three of you for your continuing service as well. i have been a longtime advocate for benchmarks or measurements to develop in the conduct of our missions, so we can measure progress and continue to be objective, in gauging the efforts in afghanistan and pakistan. i know this administration is committed and our allies are committed to proffering these objective benchmarks. are be in the process of developing new benchmarks in connection with the new mission, so that we can determine whether we are 25% toward

successful in achieving certain goals, 50%, or a lot more needs to be done? then, if we are in the process of doing that, will we be in a position to change the benchmarks as things develop on the ground? i will start with you, secretary gates. hyb>> the answer is yes. i mentioned earlier that the president has made it clear that there will be another a thoroughgoing review in a year, in december of 2010, but we have developed some clear benchmarks in terms of not only the security arena, but in terms of afghan forces, recruitment, retention, fielding, partnering and so on. the president has made it clear

and mentioned to the congressional leadership yesterday that he is expecting to get monthly reports on how we are doing against these, but we also have benchmarks on the civilian side as well. >> senator nelson, are civilian military intelligence agencies have all developed a range of benchmarks and they are in a constant process of being refined. as secretary gates said, we are going to be looking to report on those going forward. the military has their own benchmarks, but as admiral mullen reference, we have taken a much closer look at districts who controls what, what the capacity of governance is, whether there is a shadow government, how much national sovereignty can be asserted. we are looking at those kinds of the yardsticks of measurement on the military side. on the civilian side, a lot of it depends upon our assessment

of where we are starting@]i as senator chambliss said, when president karzai it took office, there were a little less than 1 million students in school, and there were virtually all boys. now there are 7 million, and about 40% are girls. there are 6 million yet to go. that is a very clear benchmark. in the agricultural area, we have rehabilitated irrigation canals and worked closely with agricultural ministry. we helped them, as did other international donors with whom we coordinate to provide better seeds. they just had their first big shipment of apples and pomegranates to india. we are supporting their acquisition of better fertilizer and farm equipment. there are measurable benchmarks. how much is the agricultural economy