us to function in debt with the a cobb -- with the society and economy. both u.s. contractors and u.s. ngosñi are represented here tod. as far as civilian military coordination, my own view is that it is improving significantly and the longer that we work at this effort, the better we are getting. in the case of funds, funds that support and come from the national guard and agricultural development teams, the

coordination is getting better every day. what we have come to conclude is that each of us is necessary, but not sufficient for success. . .

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> quality-control, in terms of accountability, as in implementing unit. the united states is a major contributor to the afghan reconstruction trust fund. for those of you have been concerned about the effectiveness of the donors, i would suggest that you looked at this as an example of something that has shown the effectiveness as a good instrument. i would just talk about what is new. as mentioned, until now, we have been responsible for about $7 billion in the execution of development and assistance programs -- assistance programs since january 2002. we were there a few weeks after the taliban were dispersed.

this was at the end of 2001. we have another $2 billion for this year and i expect that this will go higher. one thing that we will be focusing heavily on his job creation. the major element of this -- this is agriculture. we agree on that completely and we shared a briefing with the press a few weeks ago. this is a partnership with the state department and the u.s. department of agriculture, along with the national guard units and the development teams in afghanistan. in the case of afghanistan, we're trying to support a policy for afghanistan first. wherever we can purchase products from the people of afghanistan, and from the private enterprise, we will do this.

we have contributed 10% of the assistance programs directly and we expect to double this in the coming year. we are trying to achieve the right balance between whatçó weo in the east and the south, with the instability is, with what is happening in the north and the west. the percentage of the total -- this will get larger for the east and the south, if you can follow this. in the field will be pushing deeper and faster, and more flexible in how we deliver these systems to the local levels. finally, the oversight monitoring. we take the responsibility of this money very seriously, even though this is in a highly- dangerous area. we have lost the lives of

civilians, some were killed and others were badly injured. as we have carried out these programs, many of these are by a very courageous partners, and we could not do this job without them. but we will continue to press steeper, for better oversight and monitoring of the program. we rely on the special inspector general, the accounting office, and any one time on this program -- we have between 15 and 18 ongoing audits on how the program is being run. this is over the number that we had during the engagement in iraq. there is no substitute for leadership. i did not speak much yet about pakistan, but will take questions on that.

i have served in both places for over five years of my life, and there are very courageous people there in both countries, in the government and the private sector. the work that we do will only be as good as the work that they do and we will support them. >> can you give us your assessment of the civilian strategy? >> thank you for having me here. and thank you for not leaving with the general. for me, the last 12 months, starting with the review process -- it has like -- has been like watching the government wakes up from a semi-catatonic -- a semi- catatonic state. we were able to watch the unfolding tragedy since 2004 -- but we all felt fairly powerless

to do anything. the good news is that the government has woken up. this is the story of the last year on afghanistan. this is a serious purpose and engagement -- but the bad news is that they have woken up to a difficult reality. the chief person among them -- the chief among them is the level of the crisis of confidence and credibility that we and the partners face at the moment, not only in afghanistan but within the public. we squandered an amazing degree of good will among the people of afghanistan that we had in 2001. we have been slowly losing the population because of the actions of ourselves and our partners. obviously, we focused too much on killing the insurgents and not enough on securing the

populations. we have the wrong strategy and on the side of the afghan government -- we have allowed bad government to continue so badly that this was the primary mover of the insurgency as opposed to the insurgency itself. and we have -- we have not have the ability to deal with this problem, politically. a effectiveness has been an enormous issue. we fundamentally failed to recognize that afghanistan is not a centralized society, with the local reality at the social and economic level. this is critical for success and we were now focusing on that. and on the issue of agriculture, this is the lifeblood of the economy and livelihood and employment, and during many of the previous years, we were spending more to punish people than help them.

i am not saying that growing poppies is a good thing, but the emphasis was misplaced. the new strategy, and i assume you have all seen the regional stabilization strategy. i think that this has a lot of good things, things that we have been advocating for the last several years, besides the things that we should do. there are several primary objectives, to diminish the threat posed by extremism, increasing jobs and reducing the funding that is given with the opium trade, and it makes these objectives clear and it lays out the initiatives to deal with that. and the strategy does not do that, but i would advise these initiatives -- because you have enablers who are overhauling the assistance, the improving afghan

governments, and then the sectors, the rule of law, building the economic foundation, which is for everything else that we want to do. the big question that i have when reading this strategy, are many of the things that she outlined in the beginning. are these given the correct priority and are the resources? can they be accomplished in this timeframe and what does this amount to? will we get this finished and will this turn the tide? i want to talk about a couple of things before the last question. i have been trying to think of a matrix with how to about you with us, where you think in one hand, the potential for success in these efforts. you can have the efforts that would have a likelihood of

success, but with a limited impact. or a tremendous impact, hopefully both of those things. i want to talk, briefly about the aspects. many of you have heard, particularly in the recent days, about the strategy -- and not the strategy where people are out of the country have the time. the read-integration strategy. this refers to giving jobs to the low-level taliban and giving them security so they will start -- they will stop fighting. trying to do political reconciliation. i think that the impact of large numbers of insurgence stepping off the battlefield would obviously involve groups and not just individuals could be tremendous.

this is something that would have an enormous psychological impact. that is a real practical impact. i have been a great advocate of this sort of thing. if you look at afghanistan over the last several years, and the creeping tide of insecurity, many of them -- many of these areas that are not secure are areas that were strong and pro- government. there is a lot of opportunity but the likelihood of the near- term success is low or moderate. the success of this initiative depends on other things. policy coherence, which is one thing that the conference will focus on, the effective coordination, good program designed, implementation and overcoming the county measures, and time.

this is not the kind of thing, particularly given how this has been designed, as a government program that will be rolled out throughout the country. i am not saying that this is a bad program. but we are not looking for a major impact with a lot of elements needed to succeed. i think the large-scale integration will depend on the meaningful reconciliation strategy. then this becomes even more complicated. there is less a potential for yield, as many policymakers have said. the second is the primary initiative, and this is the rule of law. again, i think the potential for success in the rule of law is quite high. only second to security, this is the most important thing to get

the support of afghanistan for the government. many of the initiatives are not near-term success of initiatives. i think that the most important, the one thing i was most happy to see in this strategy, because i have been working on this is the emphasis for looking at the capacity and the potential within the non- state sectors. one problem we have had in afghanistan, is that there is a lot of existing capacity in afghanistan. if you look at something like the national solidarity program, that relies on the local government and not on the great success at the provincial and national level, which is important. as an overall approach, relying on the local-level strategies is fundamental.

a final few minutes on the big question, will this turn the tide? i think the good news is that the insurgent forces are more widespread than entrenched. the positive change on several of these fronts can have a major impact. the second piece of good news is that we do not need to centralize and a powerful bureaucratic state for stability. the more modest expectations that we have in afghanistan can actually work with the strategy of success. the problems on this side are much more entrenched. the lack of the rule of law, the consensus, remnants from the civil war in afghanistan, and a bad record of the implementation, and bad regional dynamics are all factors working against us.

and the much more entrenched things that will be much more difficult to deal with. i will close by saying that what worries me about the civilian strategy is what is still missing. the first thing is leadership in afghanistan. i am worried about not only the impact of what happened in the elections, but what this suggests about the likelihood of the afghan government, dealing with the rule of law and the corruption problems. the second is the question that was highlighted about sanctuary in pakistan. the messages have been very negative from the recent trips, and this is absolutely fundamental. related to that is a serious plan for reconciliation. everyone says that we will need to think about the long-term

political solution but no one is able to articulate a clear path away. afghanistan survives or fails to thrive in a region with neighbors that are much more powerful and without a meaningful strategy that creates interdependence, and addresses some of the problems that the neighbors see, they're not going to thrive. >> thank you very much. the discussion has been great so far. i am focused on the details, and i'll make an argument from his perspective. this is what people are thinking about on the ground. he cannot help but think about this and say that this is a

serious effort, upheaval and we may -- afghanistan had so many places where we would say, this is the last time that we can do this. this may be the last time that we sit down and say, what do they really need and how do we help them get this? there is a lot of good fodder for the mistakes that we have m. this document is trying to deal with some of them. this is the issue with implementing -- but what this s? we have done some reports on afghanistan, where we found 700

people, and the biggest concern was the economic development problem. we have $2.5 billion to basic economic development. these are specific and in the right area. it is about infrastructure and basic education and health care. this is what they want to see coming from the government. they are saying the right things, and they are talking about big numbers. when we did this survey, the second thing that we found is that the people of afghanistan think the government is corrupt. we were sitting around and trying to say, we have to give these people some money if we want to lead -- if we want for them to lead responsibly. it was very difficult to put any money into the hands of the afghan government, because of the concerns about if we have

the ability that this -- to know that this would not be stolen. we are going to put 40% of the money through the local entities. this is very risky for the american government to do. but this is the right way to do this. some of them are capable with good accountability measures and they will bring this to the people of afghanistan. we have to make it expensive for someone, when all they care about is corruption. they have to say that the u.s. government is investing in the good people. that is how you build a more responsible government. we have to see that there is a real commitment to stop spending money on contractors. we're spending over 50% of the money on the contractors. they are not the people who are at fault themselves. it is the way that they are

challenged to succeed, as we are channeling hundreds of millions of dollars in issues that are constrained. at the end of the day, we're funneling this through local systems that allow the people of afghanistan to learn this by doing things. the commitment and the reliance on contractors is great. i want to reiterate what he was talking about. we have more people on the ground and they will not just be compliance officers who will be overwhelmed. they will be able to do development if there are enough of them there. it makes me worried that we are taking -- the civilians are going to be 1000. if development is the real challenge, who are the other 700? the most important thing from my perspective and you see the

commitment to this is that the u.s. government is wanting to line the government approach to development in afghanistan. this is the same thing that they are trying to do globally through the presidential study directive that should be released any day. we may take a huge step forward for poor people across the world if the u.s. government, the general is the code-share of this along with larry summers. -- co-chair of this along with larry summers. it really matters and who is driving the car. i met a lot of u.s. government implement years, many of them in the field. i will tell you about the other side of this strategy. much of this will go to the provincial reconstruction team. they will be in the south and east. i met a lot of them, and they are very smart people.

they are soldiers for the most part. they were training for something else but they have a clear mission. you have to extend the influence of the government of afghanistan. but they are challenged in a number of ways. the car that is going in those villages to deliver development is always a humvee. the person in the driver's seat is a commander. this is the new thing in this strategy. the person in the passenger seat is a service professional. they have been trained how to ask how is this issue going to protect the united states of america. they are not trained in fighting poverty, for the most part. they are there to respect u.s. interests. they will now be spending a lot of money in the strategy.

in the back seat, you have an officer who is trying to be seen as an equal with the people running the show. he is trying to make certain that they are speaking in tandem. beside them is a usda official who knows a lot about agriculture but mostly knows about united states agriculture. and less about the overseas agriculture. not as much as the professional who has been doing this their whole life. the third person is a national guards person who is part of the agricultural business development teams. they are soldiers by definition, mostly farmers who have committed themselves to helping. the challenge is that this is driving around afghanistan, trying to meet the needs of the afghan agriculture. there is never enough time or

money. so when this pulls up into a village, the professional is wanting to go talk to the poor people and is wanting to find out what they really need. she comes back when she hears, we can do some basic things, some test control and maintenance. we can do some extension work. this will be seasonal and this will take several years to really begin. this will not be measured by what we do for them, but what we can convince them to do for themselves. we may start to see agricultural production increase. the people in the front of the car, the commander and diplomat have gone to talk to the person with power. they have asked about this and he says, i need cold storage because we can get some products to the market if we

have cold storage. this may be a great thing to have. but this is not necessarily driven by an economic analysis of getting this into cold storage. this is driven by the fact that this is very important for the national security. this will win over the agenda. when they get back into the car and asked what they will do in afghanistan, i want the development officer in the front seat, having a discussion. the structure that we have now is the commander and diplomat are both reporting into the regional command structure in the south and east. and they will report to the ambassador or gen. mccrystal. and they will report back to washington. i think the voice of the backseat driver's is going to get lost. if we are serious about developing this strategy, and

where we see afghan agriculture and development, a long, hard, dirty challenge, as essential to national security, and if the secretary is serious, the real question will be how they are going to listen to each other, and how will they make certain that the debate -- that they understand the major issues. if they get that right, we could transform the debate. if not, this is a huge promise and a lack of delivery. >> thank you very much. i will open this to the floor, and i will take a couple of questions. >> i am from the philadelphia inquirer. when you talk to the ministers in afghanistan, what they say, is can you train the staff because if we can get people trained to go out to the

districts, they can do the work that you cannot for security reasons. when i was in afghanistan, the minister from agriculture had one u.s. staff person come to his ministry. this is a long way from what we said that we wanted to do. how we can train these people. the minister of reconstruction and development -- americans are always talking about this. but one of the good ministers was fired, and nobody said anything. the person who is now the head of the ministry is rather obscure, and he is there because he has connections. we have been giving money to them -- does anyone care? >> and there is one more question? in the throat?

>> thank you for what you have said today. in light of the situation that is going on and the military challenge, what are the lessons from afghanistan that may be applied? >> and one more, right here. >> i am from the "the new york times" magazine. i am not clear if you are in agreement about this. the bottom of this is rural development. i think that what he has said is that this is creating legitimate governments. i wonder, for example, if we cannot do anything to make the central government's can't give that to the afghan people, does that mean we can do all the wonderful things that he thinks that we should do in terms of the that -- in terms of the development and this will be based on quicksand? what matters at the bottom is

some feeling of faith that people have in the state itself. >> a thank-you. do you want to start? and then we will talk down the line. >> it starts with a question about civilians in particular. i have been saying that we need to have a crash program for the civilians in afghanistan and the capacity development. it is never to early to start. there have been a lot of false starts. i think that it is important to have civilians as enablers, but the real civilian research should be in the civilians in afghanistan. the cost is between $751 million according to my information, which leads to a lot of these

people to be trained. when you look at the overall numbers -- this is absolutely essential. we are paying $7.5 billion this year to train the national security forces, and i wonder what fraction of that is being paid to train the civil servants in afghanistan. and let me address the question, very briefly. you are right to talk about attention. i feel this in my assessment of what we need to do it in afghanistan. we are on a time line at the moment where i believe as things have been slipping away, all the good that we have done, and a good projects that have been delivered, the infrastructure and the schools, the new children being educated, all

this is essential for the long- term development and prosperity of afghanistan. a return to civil war will destroy all of this. i am it in agreement -- i am on an agreement -- i am in agreement. the big thing is the instability of the project. if this is not in sight, we may lose altogether. >> in terms of the agricultural ministry, or the others who need more of the staff trained, we are certainly stepping up to the plate. the finance minister has laid out a very large program where he wanted hundreds of afghan government officers trained, advisers not just from the united states but from the friends of afghanistan.

one of the mechanisms is the concurrence by congress. we will allow the finance minister to work out within the cabinet. who will get the advisers from where, they will make the choice. it is not just training. in any government, this is the salaries and benefits. what do you pay people who are used to living in this province, to go back there and be the district governor? this is more than just training. in terms of the minister of rural development, they are a sovereign government. if they change at one minister and bring in another, we will have to look at this.

what we are accountable for is the money of our people. i know that there are many good deputies, and goes all the way down the system. things worked very well in the ministry of development. we have to give this a little bit of time. the questions -- one thing i am very pleased to see within the government is as we are working with the government of haiti to help deal with what is happening there, at the same time we are starting to plan out with them the long-term reconstruction requirements and the systems that have to be in place. if you ask if we have learned lessons -- that is one of them. and i would also say that this is all about governance.

ultimately, this will come down to governance and leadership and political will. >> i do not disagree with that i have a different opinion, and this is for your comments and the ministry of agriculture. if we are going to be serious about afghanistan, at some level we have to understand the differences between doing something in cavil -- kabul and the national challenge. there is a lot of progress there -- and this is starting to edify the content ministries, and providing them resources that they could actually make decisions over. they will be held accountable to the people of afghanistan. we're trying to allocate the resources where they said they needed to supply all the donors, so they have their own agenda.

theçó reason i have dwelt so log is because this is the government's question. ñrwe have 500,000 people in this area with agriculture. the sub-national department has $2,400 in its budget. this is to meet the needs of 500,000 people. we are not serious and if we can get to the level where a development professional is able to go into the ministry office and say that this person is ready to do more in terms of development, they will need to have real development experience. if the person is a diplomat who wants to be a winner this year, they will not know the difference between someone who is watching this to help and someone who just wants power. we have to let them know that

this project is in their best interest. and they will not be fooled easily. i love the question on haiti, and this is very good, using the way that they stepped up, and they said there will be a government strategy that will be known by the civilians. some of the generals want to do a lot very quickly, but one thing that we have learned is that you need civilian leadership. we hope that this remains the case. >> i want to take one more rounds of questions. -- one more round of questions. i do want to do one round. i hope that this is ok. >> a couple of things that were not picked up earlier in terms of strategy, if you look closely at afghanistan, some people believe that they have no natural resources. it is quite the contrary, there

is a great load of this and the chinese know this. if you look at the long-term solution on revenue generation from royalties and job creation, infrastructure development, i think that we should pay more attention to the mineral sector in the country. so we can look farther down the line from right now. how will they get the revenue and the royalty and the other income to pay for their better government and the security forces. the second thing is the cross- border transit. nobody mentioned this -- afghanistan will only get so far with agricultural growth if they cannot get across the pakistan border and get their products out to the market in a timely fashion. the quality of the police and the accountability of police to the people.

the police symbolize the embodiment of the government at the local level and they are very visible. and finally, the local governments. they do not have a fully- confirmed policy on local governments and leadership, with the financial flows to the local level. but the authorities are with the provincial council -- and the district council, this levels and the revenue sharing that comes from that. this is heavy lifting for all the elements that we have been speaking about. >> one issue that is not in the report that we have not mentioned this much, but they will talk something -- they will talk about the parliament. the lack of mention of the parliament in this report is a major issue. the reason that he was not nominated to stay is because the

parliament rejected him. this is the one entity that will not give him what he wants, and that is a serious thing. they should be strengthened to make the best decisions on behalf of the people who voted them in. >> we will take two more questions. this gentleman, and then we will finish. >> i am every tired world banker. i was involved in the first anti-opium project and i was going there, on and off. i am now advising from a former world bank corp. -- and we give the advice that goes as far as the office of the viceroy.

one thing -- afghanistan and pakistan -- [unintelligible] and there is another russian involved. i don't care -- uzbek, punjabi. if you do not handle this from their perspective, there is no afghanistan. the family i stay with it -- the daughter was there every year, and they were all wiped out. you saw a film -- they want revenge.

the national army and the national police -- forget this. >> thank you. one more. this gentleman, right here. and then we will finish. >> you were nodding your head when he was talking about the back seat, and this goes to the heart of the future of u.s. support and their role in the government. how are you advocating for your agency in this process? >> we will start with you. and if you could give your concluding remarks, that would be great. >> that is a difficult question. i think that we have a new leader who is confirmed, and they were sworn in at the headquarters a few weeks ago. he is occupied right now on haiti.

i am looking -- we are all looking to the doctor, who is the appropriate one to lead the policy directives, and to sort of address the questions that you gave. from the rank-and-file -- and the career foreign service officers, i am looking to him to represent the development part -- and this is about as far as i should go on that. my only comment is the ministry of health -- you have a case where the parliament did not go along with continuing the minister of health. ñii'd mention this just to say that if you look hard and you know afghanistan and we have

talked about them today. çóhere is an example of where there has been ineffectiveness. not perfect, still work in progress. if we're honest with ourselves, we should give the leaders some credit. they have got this right over the years. they are covering the different regions ofxd the country, as we cover it seven or eight provinces, and the british, a few others. they have a package of service delivery that is making sense. certain kinds of access to the local maternal child health care. this is the basic package of health services. you are able to measure this in touch this, and see what is happening. everybody follows that basic package of health service delivery to the common man and woman. they have reached out to pakistan and india to see what

they can do to walk across the borders on eradicating polio. one of the countries in the world still has polio. this is india, pakistan, and afghanistan. they have reached out to the international and regional community. i will close on this to say that there are the seeds of success within the leadership of afghanistan and the government itself, and their people, if we can just keep finding the right people to support, and work with, and replicate that success. that is why we have gone the next step to provide the host- country contracts, to take responsibility and accountability, the shared responsibility to deliver goods to their people, which is also, a secret of their success. they share the delivery responsibility with the locals

-- and the international partners, to deliver the services and take this with private, public partnerships. there are models that are working, that have been audited, that we believe that we can expand to the other sectors. >> i agree with what he has said and that is the perspective of the development professionals. they ask what people actually need, and where is the leadership and how do we cultivate this. diplomats ask what is in the interest of the united states. these are all legitimate questions, but at some level the have to be equal at the table if you want to work out the debate that will give -- that will come up. thank you for having us. and thank you for bringing out

general jones to talk about where they are going. >> thank you. >> i wanted to address one issue that was raised by the questions on the afghanistan issue. they have not overcome the difficulty from the civil war in the 1990's. i think that this is often overplayed. i was thrilled that there was one more thing that came out of the last round of elections, that no serious candidate was playing at the cards. i do not agree with the state about the impossibility of an afghan national army. this has been one of the successful highlights with the ability to work effectively together when properly trained, and given a good mission. i think this leads to a larger question. one of the big things about where we are at in afghanistan

is that we have been down for so long, it looks like we are up from here. there is a tremendous amount of potential. this is in the resources and the people, and after eight years, the fact that they are still so supportive of international intervention does not speak to how well they have been doing, this is how desperate that they are to create a new beginning. that is something that ultimately they will have to leave. the same thing applies to the region. one reason the taliban was created in 1994 was under to reopen the lost dream of trading the land to the middle east and europe through central asia. this is one of the first things that they were supposed to have done. that is a promise that is still unrealized.

there are great positive impacts for energy and trade and other initiatives, and those are so unexplored at the moment, and i think there is an enormous amount of potential. the final thing i will say -- something to look out for that was supposed to be highlighted more at the london conference and probably will be is the question of international civilian leadership. this has been a problem in afghanistan and is looking like this may continue to be a problem. people have left the contest to become special representatives for the united nations. there was an announcement that there would be a new senior civilian representative, not bringing together the different international -- international civilian representation. it is a lot for them to deal with all of us.

unless we are more coherent in the efforts, we are unlikely to convince them to do the same. and we need to beat a more effective helper and we have to rethink the issue of the international community, how they channel the assistance to the government, but how we represent ourselves and create a policy within our own community. >> thank you so much for your excellent remarks. have a great day.

carl levin led a congressional delegation to afghanistan and pakistan, where heñi met with te government and military leaders. he spoke to reporters on monday for about 45 minutes. >> hello, everyone. good afternoon. al franken and myself just recently returned from a visit to afghanistan and pakistan. i thought i would share a few thoughts with you, and give you some reaction. can i move this down? will this create a problem? the mess up anyone?

let's see if we can put this down. ok. thank you. there have been some positive signs that i have noticed in afghanistan, particularly since most recent visit, which was in september. the soldiers are comfortable with the counter-insurgency strategy, and that has been the universal reaction to try to protect the people of afghanistan. we have reached the conclusion based on the opinion polling that was released that the afghan people are more optimistic about their future, and the visits confirmed the polls that said that 70% of the people of afghanistan believe

they are headed in the right direction. 60% believe that their children will have a better life than they do, and the taliban as some popular. i believe the mission should be to train and equip the people of afghanistan. it is absolutely essential that they understand the mission -- the presence there with the current numbers is not open- ended, and the primary goal is to help the afghan security forces did to the place where they are able to take the predominant role in defending and protecting the people of afghanistan. there has been some progress in that area. that is what i want to talk to about this afternoon. in terms of partnering, a major part of equipping the army in

afghanistan is to partner with them, particularly in the field. we saw an increase in the amount of partnering that is going on, from what we saw previously in september. there was a chart that was given to us by a general, general rodriguez . this was june of 2009 until september of 2009. you will see that all the units to the south are partnered with coalition forces, and the italians are partnered. in the eastern region, 41 out of 41 of the battalion's are

partnered with the coalition forces. the description of how the current partnering compares to the partnering in june of 2009 is in the upper left-hand corner. you can see the combined planning is moving to fully invested partnership, and this has been improved just in those six months. the way in which this partnership is going to move forward, this is shown on the second page, with the afghan national security forces -- there is a force increase, and you can see the numbers on the bottom. this is going up to 51-51. the south and east, 55 out of 55.

and you will see that they will be embedded in most of the units, operating as one combined team. that will be the impact of that force increase. that is the 30,000 that the president has ordered. that represents significant progress. you have to see how many of them are in bed with each other, how many are truly integrated, so that the planning of the operations take place very integrated, and again, we will keep track of that. i will show you the charts to help us keep track of that in the moment. this is part of the integrated partnering. the size of the army, this has grown up significantly and the numbers are well known to the people with a chart with the numbers on them, in terms of the

current size of the army of afghanistan, compared to the goals of next september and july 2011. we were given interesting statistics when we were there, and an interesting statement that he made. i want to share this with you. the number of recruits that are in training went up to about 11,000 in january. there was a dramatic surge in recruits for the army of afghanistan. why did this happen? obviously, one reason is that there was an increase in payment that was promised. the general told us explicitly and repeatedly that in his judgment, the main reason was that the afghan leaders had said, and this was about the number of soldiers that will

begin to be reduced in july of 2011, and that this focused their mind and they got the message. from the setting of that date, the beginning of the soldiers reductions, that obama is serious when he says that the commitments of the present number of forces is not open- ended. we spoke to the general about this. coming from a militaryçó man, we were not expecting to hear something that positive about the setting of that date. he repeated this, that in his judgment, the cost of the troops surge, this was caused by the setting of that day, by president obama, and it was by

the increase in payment. another -- and other advances in the equipment of the army of afghanistan. we have authorized equipment to even though this is non-access equipment. and this is beginning to work as we put the humvees that are and the way out of iraq to afghanistan, to support the army of afghanistan. this is very important and is a good sign of progress. there is another chart that you have, and this is getting to the area -- one of the areas of disappointment.

this is a chart by the trainers. this is the chart of general called well. this shows a shortfall in the number of trainers. these are the people who do the early trading, the initial training, about eight weeks long. and you can see that we only have 37% of the trainers that we need have to train in this initial training -- of these recruits. the required number is 4235. the assignments and how many are there, 1574. the shortfall is 2600. this means we only have 37% of the trainers. this is totally unacceptable. .

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] a new way of doing things i believe this is the --. thank you very much for listening. i would be happy to take some questions. >> can you outline the nature and the purpose of conservative party -- can you explain -- are

they -- securing and do you regret the fact that >> we want to see the evolution completed. we want it to be a success. we know how important it is for the future and safety. it goes way beyond politics. in all the relationships we have and all the discussions we have is we must complete the evolution of -- and i think we can play a helpful role there but there is a danger always with the parties looking over each other's shoulders worrying about who is taking the first step and the other is somehow gaining.

in all the discussions we have, whoever i talk to, very important -- upfront and most important is to get that completed. represent the -- new political force after general elections. well underway selecting those candidates. i think that is a positive thing for northern ireland. it shows the future is -- it should be more than normal politics in northern ireland. people shouldn't be prohibited from being able to support -- our interest in doing this is to help push ahead the evolution that we think is --

>> the most important thing is pushing forward that agenda and making sure the process doesn't get -- that comes before absolutely anything else. yes? >> mr. cameron, [inaudible] can you confirm this means you will cut spending and raise tax by tens of billions of pounds if you're elected forcing another election mandate and can you

confirm -- >> let me take the second bit first. i think the biggest risk -- the bank of england, the i.m.f., the risk is not taking action to deal with budget deficit, the risk is not taking action. putting off these decisions because if the international community -- in the british colony, you could see interest rates going up. you could see unemployment going up. you could see taxes going. we are going to have to borrow a staggering amount of money from the rest of the world. they will demand an interest rate for lending us that. they will ask for a high interest rate. i don't think that is a difficult thing for people to understand. it is like your credit card.

the longer you leave it, the worse it gets. it is the same for the government. that's why we're saying is the next step the government has to take is we have to make some progress in 2010. the test for that budget will be do you -- and actually start making some progress in reducing those plans. you cannot do it all in one year and two years and three years. of course you can't. you can't deal with this deficit through spending -- of course you can't but you can show that you are serious about it and it is time for the government to get to -- to put away -- dealing with this issue and to behave like a grown-up government looking to british public in the eye and saying we have a problem. we're going to deal with it with you.

>> last week you reiterated your support to recognizing marriage in the tax system. continued to show voters -- how much longer do you plan to -- are you -- >> it is catching on. i think the good thing is -- the conservative party is absolutely serious about -- through the tax system. yes, opinion polls show this doesn't have universal support. i'm not doing this because -- i'm doing it because i think it is right. we need a more family-friendly

country. we need a more commitment-friendly country. we need a bit more we. it is actually coming together, staying together, having children together, bringing them up together. we should encourage that. now of course a small amount of money doesn't -- whether people get married or stay married. the message is more important than the money. it is time we start sending a strong message about the importance of commitment.xd it is a toilet different sets of circumstances. -- it is a totally different set of circumstances. there was, you know, all the -- expensive experienced a 13% budget deficit. it does mean we have to be careful.

everyone can know. everyone should be in no doubt at all. >> we think we know when the election is happening. there could have been -- sorry, i interrupted you. >> if you were -- could you end the -- >> i do think there is a case for -- there is a strong case but there is a -- which i have never quite worked through which is what happens when you have a very -- a weak minority government and you have a mix-up on -- stuck with that for a very long period of time.

i feel a temptation coming. i think for that reason i haven't found a way through that particular -- i mean, i think i've always felt this -- because a full third term is a very specific -- i think at a moments -- [inaudible] and so i've been repeating that. >> mentioned --xd

[inaudible] >> i think the most powerful thing we can do is to overlook -- we -- that would lift 200,000 children -- got his girlfriend pregnant and wanted to move in with her and help bring up the child. the mother of the child wouldn't let that happen would lose -- what of crazy signal is that? it is a good short-term anti-policy program and a good program and supporting marriage. strengthening families in the long-term. what we're seing in the

government, lots of steps to try and deal with the simple -- not enough to get to the --çó i've t to get -- >> thank you very much. [inaudible] why does unemployment likewise repossessions do you give any credit for the government for any of its stewardship through this and prisonships are they one big happy -- >> first of all, unemployment, we do have record levels of unemployment. it is not some successful period in trying to tackle unemployment. it has been staggeringly

unsuccessful. went into the recession with very high levels. that was the end of the boom. some work that was done should get slightly better attention which is the repossession figures, as i understand it, don't include people who at the very last minute have to basically surrender their home to a third party and then go on and then become rent payers rather than homeowners. and so a lot of people have actually lost their homes are not included in the official on the how is, we talk about business failures. we produced some figures over the weekend showing how many small business failures during this recession, more than in previous recessions and a high percentage a of them were pushed into that position by the government itself and there are

changes to deal with that.ñi very straightforward, i think it is very really important that we end early release. i think early release, people leaving under that executive scheme, before they even got to the halfway point in that sentence, i think it completely undermines faith in the crim1 justice system. itñr sends a dreadful signal ani think we should end it and prison ships are a good way making sure that we can end it in a timely and cost-effective manner. we'll be sending out plans for that in the days and weeks to come. adam? >> i still don't understand what you're saying. are you saying there will be fewer if you are elected stand you are not, aren't you simply guilty of using a tragedy for electioneering. >> right.

ok. no one cançó say that terrible things are not going to happen. that appalling crimes will not happen in the future, of course not. but what you can do is try to do things that make it less likely. it says in the report that there were so many missed opportunities and this was both unpredictable and unpreventsable. when you look at the situation over a series of years there was case after case, case review after case review but because none of them were published in full, there wasn't the attention or the detailed knowledge of what was going wrong shared widely enough. i believe that if we published these reports of course you have to have some anonymity for people's names, i think greater steps will be taken more

quickly. there is a sense that the -- where all the people who have taken part in this issue are not named. they are not having to take proper responsibility. the public isn't able to see what's gone wrong. and the pressure isn't there to put it right. i just make this point, the government didn't do the right thing. took over the social services department but it only did that between 2007 review when it had serious nailings 2009 when the government took over, there were a series of further child deaths that if these case reviews for published in full, i suspect earlier action would have been taken. i think it is a deadly serious issue. as i said in my remarks when a meantal health person kills someone, we have a full published review.

look at the zito review. i have it here the 12-page review that comes out after a case like edlington. the first four pages are sort of processology. it is really eight pages. do we believe we stop everything? of course not. would it meanxd more responsibility is taken and that we learned the lessons, absolutely yes and that's why we publish these reports in the future. laidingly the back. >> thank you. on the same point, does this mean that you'll back the liberal democrats on the -- to achieve the same goal? >> if there is an opportunity to put pressure on this issue through legislative program, yes, absolutely, i would be very happy to work with anyone to make that happen. what we have said is you have to

deal with the bulk of the structural deficit within parliament. everyone knows this is a very substantial figure. the point i'm making today is about early action. part of any plan has got to be making a start in 2010. it seems to me the government can't go on hiding. it looks as thai the economy is now growing. -- david, can i encourage you again to consider joining twitter? >> i made a good early start on downing street and ms. brown have a million followers. you can easily communicate with 10,000 people incredibly quickly with 140 character messages. will you reconsider? >> it is very kind of you to give me this opportunity. i will obviously avoid the

verbal slupups i made on a previous occasion about tweets and twits. i think i got that right. i think we should use all methods of communication. i know that hen i have twittering. it is immensely popular here. we spend so much time talking and giving speeches andñi interviews and it is all a question every time you add to this communication you have to think rather carefully whether you will be able to keep up and think through everything you say before you say it. i'll take away your thought and see whether i can tweet without the other. andy? >> mr. cameron, ken clark has made it clear it is almost impossible to rule out the fee

increase. >> we don't want to see either but ken is absolutely right. you can't as a responsible opposition rule out tax increases. i've been asked this question for four years. way back when the leaders of the party said you can't rule out taxes. the key is to do what you can to try prevent them. that's why i come back to this early action of spending reduction. the more you do that, the less you to do of anything else. >> mr. cameron, i've got a question which i think is rather -- one of national interest. what will the conservative party do with health care and the new drug for rheumatoid arthritis. this drug is permitted and approved for use in scotland because it is done by the

scottish medicines skort yum. -- consortium. it is in wide use across the united states now. >> i think it is a very good question and it is important. we think one of the ways around this is to have value-based pricing. at the moment what happens is you have drug companies will produce a new drug. people will hear about it and read about it and have very good clinical test fwuss wheels go very slowly althe licenses and you're able to get it. the idea behind value-based pricing is you're basically saying to the drug company once a drug is cleared for use and seen as effective, you should stop prescribing it and we the taxpayer would effectively pay you on the basis of how effective the drug is so you're effectively sharing the drug risk with the drug company

rather than waiting until the decision is made. many people died without having had that drug. >> the chief ofçó clinical heal scottish decision and they actually say they -- and then this drug in the unñ depends very much on where you live if not nothing else. can you do foggy address that? >> the point about scotland is we do have a system and so if scottish authorities come to a different conclusion about a different way of doing things, i just think that in the case of the english version, if you have a value-based pricing model it will be easier to get more drugs out to more people more quickly and then share the risks with the drug company.

let's have -- >> can i just get clarification on the prison ships? does that mean that you are planning to introduce it at some time in a few weeks? is that what you're saying? >> to have early release you need to make available extra prison capacity. the one of the fastest ways of change to would be through prison ships. we will be setting out our plans over the coming weeks. i believe that prison ship a way of -- quickly and because i want to meet that pledge by ending early release. i think i make that clear. >> mr. cameron, what is your opinion of politician who is support -- education and then send their own children to select i and exceptional churches and schools?

>> i don't really agree with the premise behind the question because church schools are are part of the system and i think that it is good that they are. i support faith schools. i think they have a lot to bring to education. i'm very fortunate that my daughter goes to an excellent church of england school which i'm proud that she does. i think any parent who wants the best for their child and wants to find a good school, i think that should be supported. i'm in favor of people exercising choice and i thinking that helps quality and standards. >> presumably you support his regulators current -- to lessen the ability of church schools to select their own pupils? >> i'm not quite sure what he is trying to do. he sometimes says he is doing

that. i read recently that he supports faith schools. i think -- it got terribly complicated, the whole admissionsñi criteria. i think we ought to make it less complicated. i support faith schools. i would like to see them grow. i think faith organizations bring a culture to heap school improve and i'm a strong supporter personally and politically.ñi carol walker? >> to pick up on the question about northern ireland? the u.p. is suggesting that it would not be helpful to have more than one unionist candidate. would you consider widening the negotiations and talkses that you're having in order to have some sort of elect really a pact? >> we have been focused on the

idea of bringing northern ireland for the westminster elections the chance to vote for a u.k.-wide party. this was a new force in politics. i'm very clear that that party must stand in every stitches in northern ireland. i think part of the problem of the past inñi northern ireland westminster is that the idea that you can somehow carve these seats up. we are a national party. we stand in even constituency in scotland and wales and england. we should stand in every constituent there. one last question. let's have the gentleman here. sorry, içó can't leave out jean whoñi comes to all of my speech. he gets awarded the extra bonus question. >> on the obama banking plans

you have -- voices support on an international stage. you have -- voicing anxiety. who should bankers listen to? >> bankers have the unique pleasure last week of having a boris and george lunch together where i understand there was much common ground on what needs to be done on the issues of pay and the responsibility of a whole range of subjects. i don't think it is right to subject that there is a difference. i think what obama has done is very important. firstly by taking on this issue, whether we should stop banks using effectively retail business deposits to take part in the riskiest parts of banking. this is not a return to old glass seeing thele. glass-stegal.

it is not something a retail bank should be doing. it is a very positive step forward. the fact that obama said it opens the door to having wider discussions about whether we can do this internationally and the second thing he said is addressing this issue. how do you deal with an organization knowing that they will be protected forever going to the wall by taxpayer guarantee but can take huge gambles as a result and his way of having this, it pays back money from the past.ñr could be a way of helping to build up a fund for the future. again, this opens the door to a conversation that we were saying back in july needs to be had about how we can agree to some of these things internationally. that would be something a conservative government if elected would do running up to the g-20 career. i think the conservative party has been absolutely on the

money, if you like, arguing about the changes. whereas the prime minister seems stuck on an old-fashioned model of banking and his idea of the tax which doesn't seem to be flying. >> just following up on that, can i take it there is no way the u.k. would do that sort of approach unilateraly. also on a separate issue you talked about a number of women m.p.'s traveling under conservative government. are you still intending to impose a short list to achieve aen even greater increase? >> on the issue, we think that ought to be agreed. now that the door is open. to try to get agreement for something that will make sense. set us up better for the future.

on the issue of women m.p.'s we have made good progress i'mñr delightc$aq!q it is over 60 women m.p.'s if we win. if there are more m.p. retirements, the opportunity tr all women -- the idea that the best candidates would be women, women who haven't yet been selected becauseñr there are so very good women candidates who haven't been selected. that does remain an option particularly if there is another number of requirements from colleagues currently sitting in -- can i thank you all for coming to the january press conference and i look forward to seeing you all in february. thank you. >> in a few moments, a discussion on the bureau of

immigration and customs enforcement and "washington journal" is live at 7:00 discussing the economéi and the u.s. auto industry. we have several live events to tell you about this morning. the senate homeland security committee hears about the attempted bombing of northwest flight 253 from 9/11 commission co-chairs tom kean and joe hamilton. on c-span 2 at 9:00 a.m. eastern, steny highway year ofç the steny honch yer of the national preas club.ñi >> wednesday, president obama delivers his first state of the union address to congress laying out his vision for the future of the country and plans to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care and the wars in iraq and

afghanistan. the state of the union address wednesday night. our coverage starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. on crmp span. >> now a discussion on the bureau of impression and customs enforcement. we'll hear from the head of that agency, john morton and doris meissner. the migration policy institute in washington hosts this 90-minute event. >> good morning. my name is doris meissner and aim very, very pleased to welcome such a very large audience to this kick-off event that we're having this morning. it is an event that we're video taping so i'm going to ask youñ to please turn off your cell phones and let me -- let me say in particular that i'm glad for

a large turnout because we're law firming a new series this morning. this is the launch of a series called our leadership vision speaker series and i'm going to thank john morton in advance for willing to be invited here and accepting the invitation to participate with us in this launch. in march, we will have alejandro mayorka the director of citizenship and immigration services. that is another of key positions because what we want to do with this series is give people who have subsubstantiate rble and important immigration portfolios in the government an opportunity to meelt with the public audience here and explain their vision for their agency, particularly early on in their tenure as possible. so we'll get you the invitation on the next one and that will be followed by others as people are

confirmed and so forth. the format that we're going to use this morning is for me in a moment to turn over this podium to john morton. he's going to make remarks that will be his opportunity to lay out what it is that i.c.e. does and how he sees i.c.e.'s work in relation to his being there and then he is going to join me right where he is now, seated on the stage and he and i are going to have a conversation for açó t and i'm going to ask him sew some questions and to follow up on some things hea has talked about and then we'll open the floor to those of glu the audience. now you all have john's biography in front of you and so you know that john has outstanding credentials for the position that he occupies.

next to the f.b.i. you probably know that i.c.e. is the second largest federal also law enforcement agency. that i.c.e. and customs enforcement is the second-largest federal law-enforcement agency. it is an investigative agency that has about 20,000 employees, has a budget of about $5.7 billion so we are talking about a very substantial enterprise. john of course has had a career in federal law-enforcement. he has substantial experience and knowledge of the immigration law and policy as well as the overall criminal-justice system. i would have to say that i have known and followed and worked with him throughout that period. beginning in 1994, the wind he came to the government from the university of virginia school of law, as an agent and his first

position was in the office of the general counsel at ins one i was there. there was no question but that john was smart. he was incredibly hard-working. he was capable of handling difficult and sensitive issues, and he advanced very quickly, given those characteristics and interviews, through a variety of positions and into a variety of positions at the department justice. it has been 16 years since that time, and john has worked and policy positions. he has been a prosecutor with a focus on terrorism and national security. he has held a number of senior positions in the criminal division at this justice department which oversees the work of all united states attorneys around the country. so, i am not sure that any resumes totally preparers one for the position that he holds,

but i am sure that his background is as good as it is going to get in terms of really representing a model combination of experiences and background, so for those kinds of credentials that we would want to see at i.c.e. john definitely has them. as a result, i am most happy to welcome you john and i am going to give you the opportunity now to come forward to talk to us and join me in the chairs. thanks very much. [applause] >> well, good morning. i am jones morton the assistant secretary for immigration and customs enforcement and i want to welcome you all here and thank you for coming today to hear me speak. i am very excited to be here and to give you my perspective on i.c.e., its mission and its future. first, a very warm thanks to the

migration policy institute for inviting me to come here to address you here today. i am a big believer in a thoughtful policy based analysis and we are all very fortunate to have independent nonpartisan like this one in which we can have a candid exchange and discussion. open, thoughtful, candid policy exchange is one of the great hallmarks of our country and i thank mpi for its work to advance that kind of exchange. a particular note of thanks to doris meissner. i don't think there's anyone in this town more dedicated to the idea that federal immigration policy deserves serious national treatment. that is often a fight but to doris has been fighting that battle for a long time and it is in my view in fact in issue that deserves great national attention.

ker commitment to the issues, notwithstanding all the passion, the politics and the difficult progress over the years, has been on wavering. doris was commissioner for nearly eight years. i have only been the assistant secretary for a little bit better than eight months and i can already tell you i have a profound appreciation for how hard it is to have a job like that and for how much work and effort goes into it so i want to thank doris for her service to the country as commissioner and a steady efforts since that time to promote sound immigration policy in debate. [applause] i want to cover three things with you today. i want to talk a bit about me and my philosophy, a bit about i.c.e. and what the agency really is and a bit about what i think i.c.e.'s party sought to be.

first, who is john morton? well, i was born in another country. i am the proud son of an immigrant. in fact my mother is a lawful permanent resident to this day, 43 years after she came to this country as a young woman and i think it is fairly safe to guess that would never time she has left on this earth, and i hope it is quite a long period she is going to spend it as lawful permanent resident of the united states. my first job was as the peace corps volunteer in africa. my second job was as and ins-- in the few years later i became a federal prosecutor in the department justice and now i find myself running a major law enforcement agency whose job is to investigate criminals and to enforce the nation's immigration laws. now some of you may think it odd that a peace corps volunteer born in scotland is a federal

prosecutor and now the head of i.c.e.. i don't think so. i think that represents at once two of the more important qualities that make our country great. we are a nation of immigrants, a nation whose tradition of immigration is strong, innovative and vibrant and i am a product of that tradition. we are also a nation of laws. loss that are followed, laws that give us integrity and resilience as a nation, laws that allow us to be free and forceful as a people. we have to have them. i take great pride in the work that i.c.e. does as a nation we need the integrity and our customs and immigration systems. we need control over our borders. we need to investigate and prosecute drug traffickers, counterfeiters, alien smugglers and child-- in sum, we need i.c.e..

ifill fortunate each and every day that i as a career federal employee have the privilege to serve as the assistant secretary for i.c.e.. it carries a great in weighty responsibility with it, a responsibility i take very seriously, it responsibility to lead and support our employees come a responsibility to protect americans from harm, lawlessness , abuse, the responsibility to ensure that the thousands of people we interact with every day, those were rest, those we detain, does we have remez, does the prosecutor, are treated fairly and thoughtfully. let's be frank, it is not an easy job. i will please in displease some persons, some legislators, some editorial board, some advocacy group each and every day i am in this job. i venture to guess that many of you hear what have me do some

things differently. this comes with the territory. i am not an advocate. i am a governor. and with governance comes the delicate duty of balancing competing interests, the law, resources, discretion, common sense all for the greater good. at the end of the day, my basic approach to the job is simple. i tried to make the calls on the merits. i am not a hard partisan. i am just trying to get it right. i am trying to get it right for the government. i am trying to get it right for the country and i am trying to get it right for all the people, citizens and immigrants whose lives i.c.e. touches each and every day. alright, what is i.c.e.? in the public imagination and indeed even within much of government, i.c.e. is thought of as the country's immigration enforcement agency. in fact, i.c.e. is a lot more

than that. it is one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the federal government with a wider array of criminal and civil powers many of which have nothing to do with immigration. i.c.e. is the second-largest criminal investigative agency in the united states, behind only the fbi. we have nearly 7,000 special agents nationwide, and in 44 countries around the world. in fact, with that size, i.c.e. is larger than dea and larger than 80 of them larger than the secret service. these agents are primarily involved in removing immigrants from the united states. rather, the investigative prosecute criminals regardless of their nationality to engage in transnational crime, criminals like drug and violence traffickers, money launderers, child pornographers, sex traffickers, it alien smugglers, counterfeiters and intellectual

property thieves. the same agents form a critical part of our national security effort. i.c.e. is the second-largest federal contributor to the joint terrorism task force in the country. again, second only to the fbi. were the principle investigators of international arms dealers and routinely break up efforts by foreign governments to illegally obtain sensitive technology and weaponry. i.c.e. does of course play a very significant role in civil immigration enforcement but those duties only account for about half of our personnel. criminal investigation in a national security work account for the other half. in addition our civil immigration duties are shared with customers and border protection and citizenship immigration services. some of our immigration powers are unique. we are but many of our powers are not. for example. c.v.p. all put immigrants into removal

proceedings. as you know, by far the largest number of immigration arrests and returns are carried out by the united states border patrol. how then has i.c.e. come to be defined largely in terms of civil immigration enforcement? for several reasons. first, civil immigration enforcement is a national topic elicitting very strong and often conflicting feelings and emotions on the hill and in the public. to many it is an issue that calls for significant national discussion and reform. few people feel that way about critical law enforcement. the coverage of i.c.e. in the major newspapers such as the "new york times" and the "washington post" almost always focuses on our detention and removal effortings and finally something as simple as immigration comes first in our name. it is immigration and customs enforcement.

the customs part tends to get lost in that. let me be clear. i.c.e. is and always will be a major player in this civil enforcement to have nation's immigration laws. we are proud of that mission. i don't shy away from it at all. we are proud of that mission. i don't shy away from it at all. it is basically where i come from, it is my experience. it is my tradition and something i take very seriously. i intend to make sure we are all so appreciated for the significant work we do every day to protect national security and to put criminals of all stripes in jail. alright, my goals and priorities as assistant secretary. in broad terms i have three goals. i want to protect national security and prevent a terrorist attack on this country. i want to secure the borders and the interior from transnational crime. and i want to pursue a firm,

thoughtful immigration enforcement. in the interest of time let me briefly summarize the priorities for each of these so i can spend a little bit more time talking about something, a priority of particular importance to me and that his detention reform. starting with national security. from the moment we were created in 2003, we have had a basic responsibility to protect national security and prevent terrorism. while that is the responsibility that we share with many others in the government, the intelligence community, the fbi, our sister agency said the department's homeland security, is one that we have said to take very seriously so our priorities in this area as we go forward are going to be to continue our very strong participation and support of the joint terrorism task forces around the country. we already participate in 100 out of 106 and i think it is quite likely will participate in

all 106 years shortly. we will continue to prevent the entry of suspected immigrants involved in terrorism of the support of terrorism primarily through our visas security program at overseas embassies and primarily in corrugation the cbp at the ports of entry. we are also going to strengthen our efforts to counter state sponsored attempts to obtain nuclear materials, since of weaponry and sensitive technology outside the laws of the united states. we spend an enormous amount of time doing this now. we are going to redouble our efforts for coder requires very lengthy and sophisticated criminal investigation but at the end of the day it is very important and it is important to the national security. we have to make sure that the sensitive technology and weaponry we have as a country is only sold and exchange in accordance with the law. as you may have seen, even in the past couple of months we have been hard at work and we

have arrested a number of international arms dealers that were up to absolutely no good on behalf of iran and i would like to say that we are runoffs but unfortunately that is not the case. turning to criminal investigation. as i said one of the second-largest investigative agencies in the entire federal government and i intend to see as act as such. while our investigative jurisdiction is quite broad, we have responsibility for well over 400 criminal statutes, our principle responsibility lies in combating transborder crime and that is where we put our emphasis over the next couple of years. within that very broad criminal mandate i want to place a priority in the following. first, combatting transnational crime and in particular cross-border and organized smuggling of drugs, firearms, people and money. most people probably don't

realize this but the single offense we spend the most time investigating and prosecuting isn't an immigration related offense. it is drug trafficking across the border through ports of entry. this effort is critical but not only addresses some of the major criminal fritz we have to our country but also to those of our immediate neighbors, mexico and canada. if we are going to get our relationship with mexico right, if we are going to help mexico achieve all of the potential of has as a country we have to get a better handle on the enormous problem we have on the border with transnational crime. we have 17 border enforcement security task forces along the border, both along the southern border and along the northern border plus on all of our seaports and you were going to see even more of them in the months and years to come. the exciting thing about these border enforcement security task

forces is there not just i.c.e.. we have teamed up in dea, we have teamed up the cbp. we even have representatives from candidate, mexico, colombia. it is a really important and exciting time in law enforcement for is where we are trying to attack these organized groups on a very sustained and aggressive scale. second we are going to spend a lot of time focusing on serious immigration the fences, organized document fraud, a marriage fraud, illegal entry of criminal offenders. we need to keep the system honest and we have to crack down on criminals who seek to return illegally. the truth recidivism is that while not every person who is a criminal comes back to the united states is necessarily going to commit another crime, the statistics are that most of them well. the law is very clear on trying to prevent that and we are going to spend a lot of time making sure we uphold the law. third, we are going to spend a

lot of time on international child exploitation. one of the great ills of our time is the abuse of children by international child pornography rings, sex-- eyes is a leader in these efforts to combat these serious crimes and we will redouble these efforts. we just had a case in los angeles unfortunately, which just shows the degree to which these crimes are occurring, where we investigated three united states citizens in cambodia who were molesting small cambodian children, boys and girls, three men. all three of them had prior felony convictions in the state of california for child molestation is. all three of them had done serious time in the california penal institutions and thought there erroneously, that they could get on a plane and go to cambodia and recommence where

they left off, and fortunately we spent a tremendous amount of time, effort come investigative resources and work with the cambodians. we worked with the number of ngo groups and we were able to make a u.s. case against these three men in cambodia and we brought them back to the united states. we are prosecuting all three of them and they are on their way to jail. i would like to say that those are rare cases. unfortunately there's a lot of that kind of thing going on and we are one to spend a lot of time focusing on it. it is important work. we need to do it. there's no reason why the united states should sit by while our citizens molests somebody else's children. finally we are going to spend a lot of time on intellectual property that. in the midst of a global recession we have to do more to protect legitimate businesses and workers from international counterfeiting and piracy and we have got to pay particular

attention to substandard good and counterfeit pharmaceuticals. that is just a major health and safety issue. i can tell you how many cases for example we have involving counterfeit toothpaste, and the chemicals that are placed within those tubes are not things that you ultimately want to be brushing your teeth with. alright, let's turn to the final area becoming immigration enforcement. my basic approach to immigration enforcement is to enforce the law. that is my job and that is what i intend to do. lester we removed a record 380,000 aliens from the united states. 136,000 were criminals. i predict a further increase in this fiscal year. the hard reality however is that we do not have as an agency the resources necessary to enforce

the law against every single person here illegally in the united states. instead i have to set priorities as assistant secretary within the world of limited budgets that makes good sense and sound public policy. so, with that backdrop, here are the immigration enforcement priorities that i think make good sense and sound public policy. first, the removal of criminal aliens, gang members and threats to national security. our goal is to identify arrest and remove every serious criminal alien from the united states. in the past, this was impossible, largely because we didn't have the resources or presence to be in every jail in the united states. as most of you know we have a tiered system. there is a federal system, large penitentiaries. then there's an even larger state system or state penitentiary's and finally

there's the largest system of all, the local jails and prisons at the county and city level. with the advent of securer communities, and the placement of biometric identification in state and local jails by i.c.e., we have for the first time can surely contemplate removing most criminal aliens as they come through our criminal justice system whether it is that the federal level or the state level and it is a sea change in enforcement and it is going to bring about a sea change in the way we carry out our business. i think you will see a very very sharp increase in the coming years in the number of criminal aliens removed from the united states. a very quick word about securer communities. the reason it is changing things is because we are identifying it at the front end. using diametric data namely

fingerprints, those people who have a criminal record and have some sort of immigration record with the department of homeland security. we require the process to run its course but then we know what we have. and as we enroll and implement this system and literally every single city and county jail in the united states, we are finally going to know the answer to some hard questions that have bedeviled us for a long time, how many criminals really are coming out of our nation's jails, what kind of convictions were they arrested on, what kind of conditions are that ultimately convicted four, what kind of record do they have, where are they concentrated? all of these things, all of these answers are going to have a profound affect on the way we go about carrying out their business and they are going to have a profound effect on the

budget requirements of the agencies in the future. my sense is we are going to identify a very large number of criminal offenders in our criminal justice system that we previously have not reached and we are going to be able to remove. the second priority for us, recent border across this. if we are to maintain basic border control we must arrest and remove those who enter the country illegally at the border or the airports. the third party, keiji dis. whether criminal or noncriminal. if we are going to have a credible immigration system we have to take final orders of removal seriously. we spend over a billion dollars of taxpayer money each and every year to obtain these orders. we pay for immigration officers. we pay for detention space. we pay-fors i.c.e. trulock attorney speak we pay for

justice immigration judges. if we aren't going to enforce those orders at that kind of expense, what is the purpose? we really should all call it a day and go home. the system has to have some basic integrity if we are going to put that kind of effort and time into final orders of removal they have to mean something. the fourth priority, worksite enforcement with the focus on the employer. what is the most significant reason people come to the united states? overwhelmingly is for work. gannett treasonist to join family. if we are going to direct the impulse of wanting to work in the lawful channels we have to create a culture of compliance within the employer community. to do that we are going to use a to's bronk-- two prong statute, a carrot and stick approach. we i'm also going to assist the vast majority, the