counterinsurgency strategy to a counterterrorism strategy, or send in even more troops there is no reason to automatically conclude that we should cease our efforts to help pakistan address the dire threats to its security. in 1990 we stopped providing military assistance and training to pakistan for what seemed like a good reason at the time. but as a result a whole generation of pakistani military officers rose through the rappings without any connection or affinity with the united states. and that contributed to some of the suspicion and mistrust that we are still struggling to overcome. mr. chairman, there is no question that pakistan needs to step up in a number of important areas. we hope to improve cooperation on various security issues, strengthen the role of pakistan's democratically elected government and achieve a greater parody between military and civilian assistance. the united states is aiding

pakistan because it is in our interests to ensure an economically and politically stable pakistan does not provide a sanctuary for al qaeda and other terrorist organizations. the reports in recent days that elements of the pakistani intelligence service may have been aiding our enemies is nothing new to those of us who have been following this issue and is not a reason to abandon our many friends in pakistan who are struggling to modernize their economy, their political system and their military. the security forces of pakistan are steadily taking on a taliban-backed insurgency, taking direction action against those who threaten pakistan security and stability, including military operations in the federally administered tribal areas and the northwest frontier province. mr. chairman, i'm concerned that using the war powers act to call for the removal of u.s. combat forces which do not exist will

only serve to inflame pakistan's sensibilities and do nothing to strengthen the partnership that we need to achieve our goals in this critical region. i urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. >> with all due respect to my good friend from california, special operations troops are inside of pakistan right now. three troops have died, maybe they didn't intend to be hostile, but somebody intended hostilities towards them. mr. kucinich: there's no question about the hostile climate. what i'm trying to do here with the help of mr. paul is to stop expanding the u.s. forces' footprint in pakistan so that we stop an expanding war. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much, and i thank the gentleman from ohio for this resolution and also the gentleman from texas to. die for a mistake, to die for a mistake, the lessons our leaders did not learn from the vietnam war, that's why this is -- this debate is so important today. because i remember mr. nixon saying no, no, there are no troops in cambodia. then a year later he acknowledges there are. that's all it takes is a little incursion here and a little incursion there and before you know it it's out of control. this article was written by a vietnam veteran. his son, a graduate of west point, killed in iraq. to die for a mistake. the dirty little secret to which few in washington will own up is

that the united states now faces the prospect of perpetual war and conflict. that's why this debate has to take place. whether we have three americans killed in pakistan or we have 33 or we have 300, where is congress meeting its responsibility? that's what this is about. i will regret to the day i go to my grave that i voted to give president bush the authority to go into iraq. we did not meet our responsibilities, we passed some little resolution and i voted for it. we trusted the president to not to go to war unless it was absolutely necessary but we went to war. mr. speaker, i've signed over 9,400 letters to families. this is my retribution to my god for not doing my job that day when i voted for that resolution. that's why i stand on the floor today with the gentleman from ohio and the gentleman from

texas to say, let's meet our responsibility, let's not keep saying to the american kids, you need to die for a mistake. let's give them purpose. and with that, mr. speaker, before you call me down, god, please bless our men and women in uniform. please support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i believe that this dangerous resolution is less about u.s. policy toward pakistan than it is about afghanistan and a backdoor attempt to force u.s. withdrawal from that country. because our success in afghanistan is directly linked to our effort in pakistan, withdrawal from the latter and you may bring defeat in both. in response to the september 11 attacks, congress authorized the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against

the perpetrators of those attacks, including against those who harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent future acts of international terrorism against the united states. well, al qaeda and its allies in pakistan fit that description precisely. our wonderful u.s. personnel in afghanistan are there to train and support pakistani military and security forces to enable them to battle their own insurgencies including al qaeda and other threats. much of this training is not combat-related but instead is focused on helping pakistan undertake civil military operations aimed at establishing stable and effective civilian authority in areas that are now offlimits and serve as safe havens for extremist groups. far from withdrawing we must work with pakistan to do more against the militant networks in that country that use it and

neighboring afghanistan as a launching pad from which to direct attacks against us and our allies. the adoption of this resolution would undo our efforts to accomplish these goals and build trust and credibility with pakistani leaders and the pakistani people that will help provide for long-term stability and advance our long-term interests. mr. speaker, removing our personnel from pakistan would present al qaeda with a gift that it desperately needs and convince it and the world that it is winning the fight, thereby inevitably enhancing its prestige, confidence, ambitions, resources and recruits. if this resolution were adopted it would make it more difficult and perhaps impossible for general petraeus to effectively implement the strategy that he is pursuing in afghanistan and that is being carried out by a brave -- our brave men and women

serving there. some will focus on the information reportedly contained in the many thousands of classified u.s. documents related to the conflict against al qaeda and the taliban in afghanistan and pakistan that is on a reckless and irresponsible act which compromises u.s. security as justification for this resolution. some of those documents reflect the legacy of mistrust between the united states and pakistan as well as between pakistan and afghanistan, a legacy which we are even now trying to overcome through enhanced dialogue. i'm gravely concerned that those leaked documents may have put in jeopardy coalition troops and our military mission. as national security advisor general james jones has warned, the leaks could, quote, put the lives of americans and our partners at risk and threaten our national security, end

quote. but we would be compounding the risk and further undermining our efforts against radical islamic militants in pakistan and in afghanistan if this congress would take this knee-jerk approach to our national security and military strategy by adopting this resolution before us. instead we must remain focused on our mission, on success, on prevailing against the global jihadist network. these islamic radicals in pakistan and afghanistan who seek to destabilize our allies and attack our nations and our interests are driven and focused on carrying out their deadly mission. we must in turn demonstrate that we possess the strength of character, the commitment, the where with all to counter al qaeda, the taliban and other enemies at every turn. we must not be looking for any opportunity or execution to --

excuse to seek an immediate withdrawal from the epee center of violent extremism -- epicenter of violent extremism. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous measure and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i thank the gentlelady for whom i have the greatest respect, for her concerns about the resolution. but i would like to respectfully suggest to her that the danger that's presented here is if this congress ignores the wikileaks documents that point out a connection between pakistani intelligence and the afghanistan taliban wrrks they're actually helping the taliban against our troops, we have to pay attention to that. so i didn't create this resolution in order to link it with the afghanistan war, but the pakistan intelligence has created the link with the afghanistan war because they are

actually helping the taliban. they created the link. i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california who has been a strong advocate for peace in this congress, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i rise today to support wholeheartedly mr. kucinich's and mr. paul's resolution to remove u.s. armed forces from pakistan. the war powers act clearly states that the president must seek congressional approval before committing u.s. troops and before committing funds. as recent media reports confirmed, our troops are in pakistan without congressional authorization and they as well as we ask, to what end? mr. speaker, we are running up record deficits with two wars which have cost the united states in blood and treasure. together the wars in iraq and afghanistan have cost the american taxpayers over $1

trillion and worst of all, more than 5,600 men and women in uniform have given their lives. and what do we do -- what do we get for all of this, mr. speaker? instead of winning the hearts and minds of the iraqi and afghan people we're fueling hatred and insurgency. and now we want for that to in pakistan. i don't think so. let's not do it. i urge my colleagues, demand that the administration comply with the war powers act, remove our troops from pakistan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds just in response to my friend from california's point. the war powers act, i repeat again, doesn't deal with the

presence of military forces without an authorization from congress, it deals with engaging in hostilities or imminent hostilities without the authorization of congress. we have uniformed personnel in pakistan, they're working on the military assistance program, they're working in training pakistani military, they're involved, as the wall street jurmd revealed, in -- as "the wall street journal" revealed, in the delivering of humanitarian assistance in areas that are not secure enough for our a.i.d. and civilian personnel to go. the wikileaks documentsworks all of the transparency -- documents, with all of the transparency that it provided to us about what the situation is, i'm unaware of any interpreter

which indicates reports of military u.s. forces engaged in hostilities in pakistan. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i want to introduce and ask unanimous consent a gallup poll that revealed that 59% of pakistanis viewed the u.s. as their biggest threat and that 67% of pakistanis polled were opposed to u.s. military operations in their country. now, mr. -- thank you. now, mr. speaker, if that -- if putting our troops into -- inside the borders of afghanistan, if we're not putting them in a hostile environment with those poll results, i don't know what would be hostile. i yield three minutes to mr. paul of texas who is the co-sponsor of this resolution and i want to express to him my gratitude for his patriotism. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: first off i'd like to address the subject about hostilities.

it is true there are no armies facing each other shooting and killing each other, no tanks, not those conventional type of hostilities but we don't live in a conventional era and we don't fight conventional wars but there's a lot of hostile action going on. in looking and checking to find out if anybody's been killed, the reports that i found, anywhere from 1,000 to 2,500 pakistanis have been killed. now that sounds like it's rather hostile and that comes not from our invasion in troop but we've invaded them with our predatorsworks our drone missiles and we drop bombs and we aim at targets, always at the bad people. but the best of my knowledge from the information i get is that 14 al qaeda leaders have been killed and the rest have been civilians and who knows exactly what their sentiments would be. maybe a lot of them are defending their own country. maybe they see that they don't like foreign occupiers. but there's a lot of hostile action going on and a lot of

people are dying. the gentleman from ohio is quite correct if you check with the people of pakistan they don't want us there they don't want bombs dropped on them. how would we react in this country if all of a sudden there was a drone missile that landed on one of our cities and either one or two or three americans were killed? we would be outraged and we'd want to know about it. here we do it constantly. where the real secrecy, i complain that we don't know enough about it we give up our prerogatives we allow the president to do what they want and we capitulate and give them the money. but i argue we don't know enough, and the american people don't know about it until we get deep into the quagmires and messes. what about in pakistan. last lot of conniving going on there because i'm sure their leaders are quite satisfied with us going in there because

we bribe them. we in congress just passed a bill that promises them $7.5 billion. that's how they stay in power. it's also how they can help the taliban who is fighting us. the whole thing is such a mess. but the people, you ask the people of pakistan, they're not going to support this the argument is that we have to support this because our generals want us to because this is our mission. what is our mission? our mission ought to be to defend this country, preserve liberty and show people what a free society looks like. we shouldn't be trying to tell other people how to live with bombs and threats. we give them two option we tell them do it our way, and if they do, we give them a lot of money. if they don't do it our way we start bombing them. but we don't achieve anything. that's my contention. we just go on and on. my big beef is that the overall policy, i know we're talking about the technicalities and talking about afghanistan and

pakistan, but we don't solve any technical problems until we deal with the subject of what kind of foreign policy are we supposed to be the policemen of the world? are we supposed to be in nation building? are we supposed to be bankrupting our people? are we supposed to do nation building around the world and neglect all of ours? it's coming to an end because this country is bankrupt and we have to change our policies whether we like it or not. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, the ranking member on the committee on armed services. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise in opposition to this resolution and i'm pleased to join my colleagues on the foreign affairs and armed services committees who are opposed to this ill-timed and ill-conceived measure. i'm disappointed that the house democratic leadership would allow this resolution to come

to the floor for a vote at this time. in april of 2009, the president released his strategy for afghanistan and pakistan and began to make the case to the american people that security and stability in the region are vital to the u.s. national security interests. i support this strategy. in pakistan, instability and violence have reached new highs with the insurgency moving east ward toward the capital of islamabad and bombings and suicide attacks on the rise. this fight not only affects the people of pakistan, but our security too. moreover, pakistan is an essential partner to the united states both in the near and long-term and we must remain committed to building trust between our two nations. it remains in our national interest to defite al qaeda and its extremist allies and ensure they will have no safe havebs from which to attack the

american people. in pakistan, the government and people are increasingly seeing the insurgency operating from the tribal border areas as the most existential threat to their country. despite pakistan's increased military operations, the scale, nature, and frequency of violence in pakistan makes it a nation more appropriately comparable to a combat zone such as that found in afghanistan and should be treated as much. rather than a central european country speaking foreign military financing that is why our military partnership with pakistan is essential. there are approximately 230 u.s. military personnel in pakistan. all assigned to the office of the defense representative to pakistan. this small contingent is in pakistan at the invitation of the government of pack stadge to -- of pakistan to support

security programs and training to deepen our cooperative relationship with pakistan. let me be clear. this is not a combat mission but a train and equip role for the u.s. trainers in pakistan. these trainers were selected based on the requirements established by the government of pakistan. these programs are key to pakistan's counterinsurgency operations. training which pakistan needs to combat al qaeda and taliban forces operating within their borders. representative kucinich's resolution, if enacted into law, would mandate the withdrawal of all u.s. troops from pakistan by the end of 2010. why consider this resolution now? why second-guess the commander in chief and his commanders without giving the military a chance to implement the strategy? finally, mr. speaker, i want to send a clear message to our

military men and women. this congress believes in you, we support you, and we honor your dedication. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i thank my colleague for his support for the troops. we both support the troops. the question is, some of us believe that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home. i yield one minute to mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: let me thank the gentleman for bringing this resolution. let there never be another war, military conflict or armed hostilities involving the united states military personnel that is not openly debated, expressly authorized and consented to and scrupulously overseen by this congress. we are the congress. it is our job to do our

constitutional duty. it is not second-guessing. it is oversight. it is engaging in the process of governance. there's nowhere in the constitution that says that the president just gets to go and fight wars without the oversight of the congress. it's not unpatriotic. it is not being a poor citizen. it is doing your constitutional duty to say that if you're going to commit troops, then we have a duty to know why, when, how, and there are provisions in the constitution and the war powers act to make sure that congress has the ability to keep -- to do their constitutional responsibility. we can't shirk these duties, constitutionally. not under the war pow -- neither the war powers or anything else, we are in pakistan, we are there with troops on the ground, apparently, and we are there with unmanned aerial vehicles. we have to discharge our responsibility.

mr. kucinich: i yield the gentleman another half minute. mr. ellison: ewith cannot etc. tape -- escape the weight history has assigned to us. we cannot turn a blind eye when we know troops are there and engaged. it's not responsible, it's not right. the pakistani public opinion is at an all-time low with regard to the united states. why? we hardly know because we haven't dealt with this engagement in a forthright manner. vote ysm the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. berman: i want to, if i might, mr. speaker, respond to my friend from california my neighboring district, the ranking member of the armed services committee. he made a reference to the house leadership he couldn't understand why it was setting this for debate. this is a privileged resolution.

pursuant to the house -- pursuant to the war powers act, number one. that's why it's being set for debate. it's a privileged resolution. it's not up to the leadership whether or not to debate this issue. unless we change the statute. secondly, while i disagree with my friend from ohio about whether the requisite requirements of the war powers act are met because my conclusion is we are not engaged in hostilities as that term is used in the war powers act, i do want to say, i don't understand why somehow debating a subject, seeking oversight, making sure that taxpayers' funds are well spent that our troops are protected and being well served, that our interests are being pursued by a particular operation, why the debate of that on the house floor is evidence of not supporting the troops. to the contrary, having had

more debate on the house floor -- had we had more debate on the house floor over the last 10 years, perhaps $8 billion in military assistance to iraq that was lost and can't be accounted for might not have happened. i know one thing, perhaps we wouldn't have given the military leader of pakistan free rein to cut deals with talibani groups, appeasement agreements in various parts of pakistan during the period prior to his removal from office. perhaps we would have a greater sense, and here we do, have a greater sense of knowledge of where our defense aid is going and what our military assistance is being used for than ever before, in large part thanks to the oversight responsibilities of the committee on oversight and government reform. these are useful processes.

they're much better than simply providing the money and then turning away until it's all over. i commend the gentleman for using what i think is the wrong vehicle but the appropriate subject of having an open discussion about the need to know what we're doing. i think that serves our forces an serves our country. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i'd like to inquire how much time each side has left. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 17 minutes. the gentleman from california has seven minutes. the gentlewoman from florida has seven minutes. mr. kucinich: i would like to yield mr. paul of texas three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to talk a little bit more about our policy because i said before i think it's the

policy that gets us into these predicaments and that if you deal with this as a strictly technical, tactical problem we have to face and how to rectify our problems, i don't think it will occur. i think we have to deal in the overall policy. in many ways, we follow a schizophrenic type of foreign policy because one time our best friends -- they're our best friends, then later on they become our worst enemies. this was true with saddam hussein. in the 1980's, he was our friend and we took care of him and we sent him -- encouraged him, supported his war. then, of course that changed. but even right before 9/11, the taliban was still receiving money from us. now they receive money from us indirectly. the taliban gets money from the pakistanis, or at least information, as has been reported but they literally get some of our money in the process because in order for us

to move equipment through afghanistan, literally, they end up getting american dollars doing this. so here we are, going into pakistan, one of the arguments that go into pakistan is we have to go after the taliban, they're over there and they're organizing and they want to kill the american soldiers in afghanistan. so this means that now they are our arch enemies. but the taliban, especially in the 1980's, and the 1990's -- in the 1980's, they weren't called the taliban. they were child mujahideen. it was a precurse -- they were called the mujahideen. they were a precursor. they were allies because we supported the principle that it was wrong for the soviets to be occupying afghanistan. now the tables have turned and now we're the occupiers and now the very people that used to help us are now shooting and

killing us and now it's been revealed just recently with this release of information that they actually have some stinger missiles and in the last month or so, three of our helicopters have been shot down. where does this all end? one thing about the reports in the newspaper, i think if they change the definition, or the use of one term, i think it would change everybody's attitude. if people came around to believing that the taliban are people who aren't dedicated toward coming over here to kill us, like some of the al qaeda are, but the taliban are only interested in getting rid of the occupiers of their country system of we call them militants. so we go in and we raid and shoot and kill and bomb and then we say, ah-ha we killed 37 militants today. what if we reported this always, like we did in the

1980's, what if we always reported -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. paul spks what if it was -- mr. paul: what if it with it was reported when freedom fighters were killed as when they were our friends and allies, the whole thing would change. they were formerly our allies and our so-called friends. so this is just a reflection on the ridiculousness of our endless policy of intervention and how so often our allies and our friends turn against us and our money, taxpayers' money is so often used against this. i think this is a perfect example. we like to stop it. that's why we brought this resolution up. we don't want to see this war spread, and we want the american people to mow about it and we want this congress to know about it because foreign

policy isn't even written in the constitution. the responsibility of how we run our foreign affairs is with the u.s. congress, and when we go to war it it should be a congressional function, not an executive function, and someday we may get there but right now today we have to do our very best to let people know the shortcomings of the policy we're following in pakistan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, i'm so honored to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, the ranking member on the foreign affairs subcommittee on the middle east and south asia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. burton: i thank the gentlelady for yielding, and i'd like to remind my colleagues who are so hell-bent to get the training troops that we have, 230 u.s. troops helping with the training in pakistan out of pakistan. i'd like to remind them on 9/11 we were attacked by al qaeda terrorists whose head was osama

bin laden, and osama bin laden has been going back and forth across the afghani-pakistani border and there has been training going on with terrorists there and in yemen to try to foment war terrorism and to try to get them to move toward more attacks on the united states of america. this is a war that we're fighting to protect america as well as make sure the entire region over there is stable. pakistan is a nuclear power. if the taliban and al qaeda are successful in taking over that country, can you imagine what the rest of the world would have to deal with with them having the nuclear capability that they would have? that's one of the things we have to talk about. and without the training -- i'd like to point this out -- without the training of our troops that are in pakistan as trainers, the 230 of them, the money that we're using to fight

this war against the taliban and al qaeda would not be used as effectively and as efficiently because those people have to be trained to use the technology that we're giving them. and you have to have somebody over there that can train them and teach them about what this equipment can and will do. now, let me just make a couple of points. first of all, if we cut military ties to pakistan, it's crazy. the border between pakistan and afghanistan just goes all over the place. nobody can really tell you when you cross the border and go back and forth so you're going to have some mistakes made in going after the taliban or al qaeda terrorists in that region. and for us so cut aid and assistance to pakistan at a time when we're trying to win the war and stop terrorism in afghanistan would be in my opinion insane. we need to continue to work with pakistan, not only for the stability of that country but to make sure that we stop the

terrorist training that's taking place. now, there's no question. we have some differences, some policy differences with the pakistani government. but we have differences with a lot of our friends, but we still support them, especially when it's in our national interest to do so. and working with them and helping with the training is extremely important, as i stated a moment ago. and as i said before, the border between pakistan and afghanistan has mountains and valleys and it's extremely difficult to know where those borders are, and we must not allow the enemy to have sanctuary. that's why it's important for us to train their troops to be able to go after the taliban and al qaeda. because if osama bin laden can go into pakistan with impunity, if the terrorists can go in there with impunity, if they can go back and forth across that border, we can never win the war. to say they can have sanctuary in pakistan is like saying to a football team, win the game but

don't go beyond the 50-yard line. you can't let the enemy have sanctuary. if we didn't learn anything from vietnam we should have learned that. this is an entire breeding ground for terrorism, that border between pakistan and afghanistan, part of pakistan and all of afghanistan. and because we've been putting so much heat on the taliban and al qaeda, they have been moving their training grounds outside of afghanistan into yemen and into pakistan and that's why we must not allow them to have sanctuary. another thing i'd like to talk about that's not been mentioned is the rules of engagement. when i was coming in today i heard on the radio an afghanistan american soldier who had just gotten back from afghanistan and he said the rules of engagement are crazy. he said he'll go into a combat situation and he'll have an enemy target and they'll say you can't fire on that target unless you get approval from your commanding officer and he

says many times the soldiers who are put in that position will get killed before they get the approval to fire on their target. we need to change those rules of engagement so we can go after the enemy wherever they are. and get the job done. why should we handcuff our troops when they're in a combat situation? it makes absolutely no sense. that's a recipe for disaster. so if i were talking to the president or general petraeus i would say, let the troops do their job, don't give sanctuary to the enemy, help the pakistanis fight them over there and train the pakistanis over there and give our troops the ability when they hit a target to be able to go after that target, to knock that target out and not wait for orders that might endanger their very lives. that's a good way to get all of our troops killed. we are in a war, not only in that area that's going to decide what's going to go on in the entire middle east, but iran and afghanistan and

pakistan, but we're in a war that may very well come back to the united states and hurt us a great deal. we cannot let the terrorists have the ability with impunity to be trained and be ready to attack the united states again or any of our allies. and that's why we and our allies must work together to make sure we stop the terrorists from having the ability to feel safe in their training practices in pakistan, in afghanistan, yemen or wherever they are. this is a war and it's a war for the survival of many parts of the world and i believe including the united states. and so we must do whatever is necessary to win that war, and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: i want to say to my friend from indiana who is my friend and with whom i have served in this coping for 14 years and -- congress for 14

years and whose dedication to this nation should never be questioned. i want to say to my friend from indiana that this house concurrent resolution does not cut aid to pakistan. it does not cut assistance to pakistan. i would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record an account of the direct u.s. aid and military reimbursements to pakistan from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: in a minute. in a minute. in this it points out the following -- that coalition support funds, pakistan during this period has received $8.1 billion, that with respect to foreign military financing it's received $2.1 billion, and with respect to economic support funds it's received $4.7 billion. now, i'm not advocating that we strike those funds. what i am saying to my friend from indiana and to others who

are concerned about this resolution is that this resolution is about stopping the united states from getting deeper into pakistan. now, some members may feel that we should have troops in pakistan, and this debate -- this is the first time we have had this debate because since we have troops there we can at least have the debate which is appropriate for congress, but my friend from indiana, who's raised several important questions, he's talked about osama bin laden. you know, the pakistan i.s.i., their intelligence, is extraordinary. they're so extraordinary that they can play a double game with the united states. they can ask us to help them go after the taliban in pakistan, which we do, while at the same time they aid the taliban in afghanistan against our own troops. now, someone is that slick, who can basically con the united

states, you can imagine what's going on in their mind with respect to helping the united states locate osama bin laden if in fact he's still alive. the other thing is we have to be concerned that wherever we send our troops that united states occupation fuels insurgencies. this is why we've had the casualties in iraq. this is why we've had casualties in afghanistan. it's why if we continue to expand our footprint in pakistan why there will be more u.s. casualties there and the final thing is that i want to answer my friend -- and i will yield him time in a minute -- you mentioned vietnam. prior to the end of the vietnam war in 1964 u.s. military advisors had been in and around south vietnam for a decade. as the government of south vietnam grew weaker, the number of military advisors grew in number. the u.s. poured billions of dollars in u.s. aid -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield myself

another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: the u.s. point of order billions of dollars into vietnam propping up the increasingly weak government and expanding communism in the world. now, does this scenario sound familiar? well, it should because that's exactly what's happening in pakistan and why i'm glad that mr. paul and i have been able to effect this debate. i yield time to my friend. mr. burton: the point i made in my floor statement, there are 230 military trainers in pakistan. the men that were killed were there on a training mission, and the money that we're giving to pakistan has to be used efficiently and effectively. and if we give them the money and the equipment and they don't know how to use it in the front lines it's a waste of our money when we're fighting the enemy, when they're fighting the enemy, and that's why it's important for the 230 military trainers there to be there to make sure that our tax dollars that are going over there to fight the taliban and al qaeda

is used effectively and efficiently. i hope you agree with that. mr. kucinich: well, reclaiming my time, i -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kucinich: i yield myself another half minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: reclaiming my time. if the gentleman supports the idea of the u.s. presence in afghanistan on the ground then your logic would follow perfectly. however, what i'm saying is that following the language in the war powers resolution, we've had three troops killed there. the atmosphere for the u.s. in pakistan is quite hostile. gal lineup poll demonstrated that. people don't -- gallop poll demonstrated that. people don't want us there. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york, mr. mcmahon, will control the time of the gentleman from california. mr. mcmahon: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i recognize the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the

distinguished manager and i really applaud congressman kucinich for allowing us to come to the floor today and discuss a crucial aspect of america's foreign policy. frankly, i believe it is time for us to come home from afghanistan having just returned just over two weeks ago in the early part of july when i was able to see the enormity of corruption and the lack of standing up by the afghan government. but i saw the resilience of the united states military and the willingness of the people in afghanistan to be able to desire a better quality of life. i think that we are now poised to build the afghan national security forces and to remove our forces from the dangers of the taliban neighbors who live in afghanistan who are not leaving who have a difference of opinion. in the instance of pakistan, i think it is key that we recognize that there are some troubling circumstances. and, yes, we do have some questions as it relates to the people of pakistan

understanding the great humanitarian work that the american people have done. the work they've done with usaid, the work they've done in helping to build schools, and it is the responsibility of the pakistan government to be able to emphasize what the presence of the united states is all about. i do not want boots on the ground dealing with hostility. but we have boots on the ground all around the world, but they're not engaged in hostility. they're providing, if you will, a level of peacekeeping and friendship and cooperation. now, we need to rid ourselves of the involvement of the i.s.i. in undermining american soldiers in afghanistan. . pakistani army military forces are investing their treasure and we are providing them the training that is necessary.

i believe what the congressman has done here is important and he is absolutely right to be able to have this discussion and to recognize that something is awry. we have to work together on the humanitarian side to be able to inform the pakistani people and the pakistan parliament and government officials to not run away from the humanitarian work that the united states is doing. we just passed a multibillion dollar bill that is going to work on rebuilding pakistan from the education and social and health care lines. so the training that is being done by our military should be done in a peaceful mode and that should be announced by the officials of the pakistan government and not run away from the good things we are doing there. my concern to be able to acknowledge or affirm that we have troops there under the war powers act would suggest that we are there in a hostile manner. we are perceived with hostility

because there has not been a standing up by our friends in pakistan to be able -- may have an additional minute? >> i yield the gentlelady another minute. ms. jackson lee: we are working collaboratively in a diplomatic manner to enhance the quality of life and provide the security, if you will, the pakistani people working with or working with their military in the forefront. so i would argue that we have much work to do in afghanistan. our troops need to come home. and the technical assistance that is being given to their neighbor, pakistan, must be defined as that, and not defined as a hostile manner. i'm looking forward to us clarifying the relationship and ensuring that the pakistan intelligence is not undermining this diplomatic, civilian focus

effort of our military, using training techniques and to be able to cooperate by allowing pakistani military to interact with our military for procedures and process. it is clear that we have a very contentious situation in the region, pakistan, india, bangladesh -- another 30 seconds. >> i yield 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: a contentious relationship there, but i have great hope as the co-chair of the pakistan caucus that working with pakistani americans, building on the core of hue man tarianism that we are working with the pakistan-american foundation that has been developed that we can overcome the image that the pakistan people have that we are there to fight against taliban, al qaeda and osama bin laden and put them forward trained and equipped to be able to work on behalf of the pakistan people.

with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i would inquire how much time do the respective debaters have. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 8 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from new york has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentlewoman from florida has one minute. mr. kucinich: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: in response to the gentlelady's comments about training troops, the u.s. has been training troops in iraq and afghanistan for over seven years now with arguably little or no sign of success. yet, we are applying the same failed counterinsurgency strategies in iraq, afghanistan

and now, perhaps pakistan. a seemingly endless stream of money, an estimated $1 trillion has been poured into the destruction of iraq and afghanistan, millions of dollars in taxpayer money spent to prop up a corrupt and unpopular central government and train local security forces, yet attacks on the u.s. and allied troops continue to rise. documents released by wikileaks report that pakistan intelligence service, i.s.i. support taliban attacks on u.s. forces. this despite an average of $1 billion a year in aid from the u.s. per year. now, this raises a broader question, mr. speaker. this is really about today in washington.

can the united states win the war in afghanistan or if any success at all, if our major ally pakistan, through their intelligence agency is cooperating with the taliban against our troops in afghanistan. i mean, listen to this, even afghanistan government officials are complaining about this. this is from -- and i ask unanimous consent to insert this article from righters in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: afghanistan questions pakistan's role, where they talk about -- they are complaining about pakistan's role in the insurgency is being ignored and an official of the pakistan security council, quote, according to reuters, quote, warned that the war would not succeed unless there was a review of afghan policy by

washington that focuses on taliban sanctuaries and bases in pakistan and their supporters. now, when you have things so bad that even in afghanistan where the government is hopelessly corrupt, they're complaining about pakistan, you see the kind of mess we could get into if we expand the footprint of our troops within the border of pakistan. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: i will continue to reserve my precious one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves her time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield myself another two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: it's been said

early on in this debate that the wikileaks' documents, 92,000 documents, i don't know who has had time to read them all, but according to what's been said publicly, that it represents nothing new. here are key findings of the wikileak documents that were reported in the "new york times" in the last day. our -- our troops have been placed in mortal danger, that countless innocent civilians have been killed by mistake, that the afghan government is hopelessly corrupt, that pakistan intelligence has collaborated with the taliban against the u.s., that the pentagon has understated the fire power of the insurgents and top pakistani general who was visiting a suicide bombing school on a monthly basis. now, if this has been going on

for years and nothing new, you have to ask the question, then why in the world why are we having that debate. if this is nothing new, why didn't the american people know about this, why did it take a document dump by wikileaks to wake up the congress and say wait a minute, the war isn't going the way you thought it was. it's not only a question of if we knew then what we know now, it's a question that do we remember what we knew then and why isn't it affecting our policy right now, why aren't we getting out of afghanistan? why are we pretending there is a withdrawal from iraq if we leave 50,000 troops and why would we be expanding our footprint in pakistan? reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from new york. mr. mcmahon: i continue to reserve the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i would like to ask how much time remains on each side because i'm going to reserve the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 3 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from new york has 2 1/2 minutes and the gentlewoman from florida has one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: i yield myself such time as i have remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: the relationship with pakistan is one of the most complex and critically important in the world. while significant challenges remain, the u.s. and pakistan have deep and mutual cooperation against insurgent groups. counterterrorism cooperation has led to significant losses to al qaeda's relationship and leadership within pakistan, with

more than half of al qaeda senior leaders being killed or captured. the pakistani military has undertaken offenses in two provinces, putting sustained pressure on violent military groups. the u.s. and pakistan have also commenced a strategic dialogue which has expanded cooperation on a wide range of critical issues. even with these positive trends, the you us must continue to -- the u.s. must continue to press the pakistani government particularly its military and intelligence services to continue their strategic shift against extremists and stay on the offensive. mr. speaker, the u.s. needs to maintain the purpose in pakistan and i therefore urge the defeat of this dangerous resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include

extraneous material into the record on house concurrent resolution 301. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. kucinich: and i continue to reserved. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. mcmahon: i claim the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcmahon: i will just conclude by applauding the gentleman from ohio for his passion and concern for our men and women in uniform and certainly for the foreign policy of this nation, even though i join in disagreement of his position with my colleagues, the gentlelady from florida, the ranking member of the house foreign affairs committee. it's quite clear to anyone that our -- that america's relationship with pakistan is one that is fraught with uncertainty, cloudyness. it's been clear since 1979 when the american embassy was stormed in islam bad and there are many different layers to this onion

which is the society of pakistan. that being said, we know that from many pakistani americans who live in our districts that these are people both here in this country and in pakistan who want to have a strong relationship with america. and that's why it's so important, mr. speaker, that we have these boots on the ground, as we said, these few hundred military personnel who are making sure that not only our counterinsurgency funds but our civil funds are used in the right way. we are not engaged in hostilities in pakistan. and therefore, this resolution is misguided. it is dangerous. it sends the wrong message. and for those reasons, mr. chairman, i urge all of my colleagues in this house to oppose it. and conclude by yielding the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields his time. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i assume i have the right to close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. kucinich: i want to thank the gentlelady from florida for her commitment to this debate and for her passion to make sure american foreign policy always receives a very strong and ringing endorsement. i thank the gentleman from new york and the gentleman from california for this. and i thank mr. paul, who has been a very powerful voice in >> the house voted against the resolution. our live coverage of the house resumes when we return at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. coming up next on c-span, the senate armed services committee reviews the nominee to head the central command.

and a look at al gulf coast tourism has been affected by that gulf coast oil spill. a talk by education secretary arne duncan. tomorrow, a special representative to afghanistan and pakistan richard holbrooke will he is scheduled to testify at a sub appropriations committee. you can watch it live on c-span 3 beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. >> with no york representative charles rangel in the news because of the recent house ethics committee hearing, watch a world history with congressman rangel. the c-span video libraries online and free, washington your way. c-span is now available in over

100 million homes, bringing you washington your way picked a public service treated by america's cable companies. -- your way. a public service created by america's cable companies. >> there was a confirmation mattis. from james madiso he will replace general petraeus. this is just under two hours.

the general mattis is no stranger to this committee. he served more than 30 years in the military with tours in afghanistan and iraq. in the last few years, he has served as the commander of the u.s. joined forces command. for many -- many have considered his work to be pioneering work. general petraeus told me last week that he and general mattis have worked closely and well together. indeed, he collaborated closely with general petraeus in writing the book on counterinsurgency doctrine during his tenure as commanding general of the marine corps combat development command. general mattis will have the opportunity as the sand, commander to see the troops of his most recent labor.

in afghanistan, a top priority for the next sentcom commander is to make sure that the general petraeus has everything he needs to succeed. other than a change in leadership of the effort in afghanistan, it does not represent a change in policy. our goal there remains to prevent afghanistan from being dominated by a taliban-led insurgency that would once again provide a safe haven for al qaeda to plan attacks against and the world.es they will help the city forces

to take principal of 44 the afghan affairs. number one, a surge in the recruiting to help with the army meet its current target strength of 130,000. no. 2, the party of afghan security forces with coalition forces is improving with combined forces in the field starting to be predominately afghan. in the coming days, a major joint afghan army operation will be conducted west of canned a hard city in the traditional taliban -- west of kandahar city

in the traditional taliban area. it has been jointly planned. it is of critical importance. it will be carried out with afghan security forces in the lead. the significance of this will not be lost on the afghan people nor on the taliban. it will undermine the taliban propaganda that the united states and its allies are looking to dominate afghanistan. there are signs of progress. significant challenges remain. each challenge includes the threat emanating from pakistan where insurgent groups, such as network, continued to

find sanctuary. the maligned influence of power brokers, warlords, and private security contractors who engage in bribery, blatant racketeering, and ripoffs in afghanistan appeared in iraq, we're in the threshold of an ira -- in afghanistan. in iraq, we're on the threshold of another milestone. the first combat mission in iraq will end and u.s. forces will transition to the role of advising and assisting the iraqi security forces as well as targeted counter-terrorism missions. according to the commander of u.s. forces iraq, security continues to improve in iraq, generally, despite recent high- profile attacks and the drawdown of u.s. forces from 70,000 to

50,000 remaining on track. general odierno recently acknowledged that iraq posed problems are principally political and economic. -- iraq's problems are principled political and economic. long-standing issues, including the political future of its northern provinces and how distribute iraq's abundant oil revenues. a critical part of the drawdown of u.s. forces is the interagency transition from department of defense lead to department of state lead with respect to u.s./iraqi long-term relations and responsibility for stability and reconstruction activities in iraq. and we're interested to hear general mattis' views on the importance of this transition, and if confirmed what actions he

would take, if any, to ensure that it is accomplished efficiently and eectively. the attempted christmas day airline bombing near detroit reminded americans that al qaeda is a global organization that continues to threaten harm to those who do not share its radical views. that nearly catastrophic issue also focused attention on yemen, a country with an uneven record on counterterrorism and large ungoverned situations that serve as attractive sanctuaries for al qaeda and its recruits. general mattis will undoubtedly be confronted with challenges emerging from yeme during his tenure at centcom. any counterterrism success nez yemen and across the centcom region will probably lead to al qaeda and its supporters moving to other countries in the gion. general mattis will have to reassess constantly his efforts and change the application of

resources to respond to changing threats. this committee stands ready to support general mattis in these efforts. as general mattis articulated in response to advance policy questions from this committee, also key among the challenges he will confront is helping to check any aggressive actions by iran. iran's pursuit of a nuclear program undermines stability and stokes fear across the region. the brutal tactics and human rights ases of the government of iran in its efforts to silence the voices of the people of iran are also of deep concern. as the new bilateral and multi-lateral sanctions regime are implemented, it will be critical to continue to work th other countries in the region on robust sanctions enforcement. we expect general mattis to keep us informed on a regular basis of events occurring relative to

iran. general mattis, we appreciate the sacrifices that you have already made in the service of our country. we thank you in advance for your willingness to bear the burden of continued service. senator mccain. >>hank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this timely hearing, and hopefully we can move general mattis' nomination as quickly as possible so he can get to work. we're pleased to hear testimony from general mattis as we consider his nomination to be commander of u.s. central command. general mattis is one of america's most accomplished warrior thinkers, a warrior who has led men in combat with success and valor in afghanistan, iraq and in the wider war against violent islamic extremism. and he has advanced the condu of warfare in the 21st century

central through his commanding of the u.s. joint forces command. general matt sis also known for engaging at times in a little straight talk, something that this senator particularly appreciates. centcom area of responsibility is the frt line for u.s. forces today and in this theater our men and women in uniform are fighting two wars and facing countless of other challenges on behalf of our nation. now and in the coming years we will look to centcom's leadership on host of critical priorities to redeploy our forces from iraq under conditions of success while consolidating our long-term strategic partnership with that essential country. to continue builng a balance of power in the middle east that curbs the iranian government's pursuit of regional hedge moan and a nuclear weapons capability, to support the independence of democratic partners like lebanon and long-standing friends in the gulf, all of whom are beset by

violent enemies, and finally to stand up for human rights and democratic aspirations of citizens across the region, especially in a country like egypt which is entering a critical period of transition. perhaps the most important near-term priority in the centcom area of responsibility is winning the war in afghanistan. since the president's speech at west point last december our campaign in afghanistan has been slower and harder than we had imagined. there have been setbacks and changes that we did not perce e perceive. all of our search forces will finally be in place by the end of next month, while many of the nato forces we were promised were not materializing, this is leading some to doubt whether the war is winnable, whether it's wth of crifice and whether we should begin to withdraw our forces. some are seizing on the recent leak of 92,000 highly classified documents about afghanistan and

pakistan drawn from the years 2004 to 2009 as somehow proof that the war is lost. in actuality the emerging picture from these documents appear to be little more than what we knew already, that the war in afghanistan was deteriorating over the past several years and that we were not winning. in this sense the wikileaks disclosure is simply an extended footnote to a well-known reading of recent history. that's why a concerted effort has been made since 2009, both in the administration and in the congress, to make wide ranging changes to our strategy in afghanistan, to increase our mmitment of troops and resources and to bring new and better leadership to the mission. as a result, we are beginning to address many of the problems highlighted within these leaked documents. it's only been 23 days since general petraeus assumed command in kabul, and w need to give him the time he needs to review and if necessary make anges to

our campaign plan to achieve success. but no matter how many good adjustments we make to our strategy on the ground, our ability to succeed will continue to be severely limited if afghans and actors in the region, friends and enemies alike all think we will begin leaving in a year. i just visited afghanistan with senator lieberman and graham, and we heard this concern everywhere we went. our afghan friends are worried that we will leave, and the taliban will cut their heads off, and as long as they believe that, they will hedge their bets on this mission, and that goes for pakistan as well. the wikileaks controversy has reopened charges that elements of the pakistani military around intelligence services are playing both sides of the fight in afghanistan, but this should not be surprising, especially when we are sounding an uncertain trumpet about our own commitment. general petraeus has said about

afghanistan that, quote, we're in this to win, unquote, and i imine you feel the same way, general mattis. i appreciate that conviction, and i share it, but we need to hear it clearly and consistently from the highest levels of the administration. we need to hear that when winning a war is quote, vital national security interest as the president has rightly described the fight in afghanistan, you don't surge for one year and then begin leaving regardless of whether you've achieved your objectives or not. we're asking our afghan partners to take an enormous chance on us, a wager in many cases, that could cost them their lives. we should not expect to summon that kind of tota commitment and faith in us if we're not prepared to extend the same to them. i know that our military leaders and our troops on the ground are giving every ounce of devotion they have to this mission and to their afghan partners on whom

success ultimately depends. it is the solemn obligation of political leaders here in washington to be equal to that commitment and the sacrifice it entails. that's the only way we will be successful in this war. i thank you, general mattis, for your willingness to serve our nation once again when we need you mo. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator mccain. general mattis, before i turn to you r your opening statement, we have a set of standard questions which we pose to all nominees. first, have you adhered to all applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest? >> yes, sir. >> do you agree when asked to give your personal views, even if those views differ from the administration in power? >> yes, sir. >> have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would appear to produce the outcome of the confirmation proses? >> no. >>i will you ensure that your staff colies with deadlines

r requested communication? >> yes, sir. >> will you cooperate in oviding written briefs in response to congressional questions. >> yes, so. >> will those witnesses be protected from reprisal? >> yes, sir. >> do you agree if confirmed to testify upon request before this committee? >> yes, sir. >> and do you agree finally to provide documents including the copies of electronic forms of communication in a timely manner when asked by a duly constituted committee or to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents? >> yes, sir. >> thank you very much, general, and now we'll turn to you for your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. mccain, memb committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. i am honored to have been nominated by the president to serve as the commaer of the united states central command. i request my written statement

be accepted for the record. >> it will be. >> i wish to acknowledge general petraeus and the acting commander of central command, john allen. and to express my appreciation for their selfless service. if i am confirmed as commander, our troops, our regional partners and our adversaries alike should know that the leadership has changed but our strategy, our mission, and our activities have not. despite any recent papers leaked to the media, we are remaining in the region. we are not leaving. there will also be harmony in our relationships. the wars we are fighting require highly integrated civilian military efforts from the highest the lowest levels. if confirmed, i will make every effort to work closely with the civilian and military leaders charged with leading our operations and to ensure they are fully resourced in a coherent and comprehensive manner. consistency in our approach and harmony in our relationships are

fundamental to achieving unity of effort in a region vital to our national interestnd those of the international community. in the midst of the harsh realities we face, there are also opportunities to work with responsible, moderate etmelemen and i will be eager to do so. i have no illusions that there are elements that are irreconcilable, part of a movement that is intent on carrying out attacks on innocent civilians worldwide and which must be confronted by the strongest possible coalitions. our enemies' actions offer us opportunities to counter their extremist ideology. those who deliberately kill innocents know their message cannot win at the ballot box and they repeatedly resort to violent intimidation. that alienates the larger population whose support they seek to gain. we in our coalition and regional partners by contrast involved in

the noble cause of helping to realize a brighter future in the region and internationally. we are the good guys. yet we're not perfect. regrettably, we make mistakes, about which we are candid and constantly strive to correct. but we are the ones working to protect the population, to reopen schools, to immunize children too, provide electricity and to offer new hope, balancing chivalry to the innocent with unflinching military prowess against the irreconcilable elements who choose violence. this stands in sharp contrast to those we confront wh target the innocent from kandahar to isl islamabad and the list goes on. if confirmed, my immediate priority will be the campaign in afanistan. the stakes there are high. the military component of our strategy in afghanistan is sound and it requires firm execution.

i support it fully. i believe that by steadfastly executing our strategy, we will win in afghastan. nothing abo the mission will be easy, however. we recognize that achieving our goals in afghanistan requires also the enduring commitment of the international community. linked to our campaign in afghanistan is our strategic partnership with pakistan. proximity to an ea with affiliated terror groups has dealt the people of pakistan a tough hand. pakistan continues to endure great sacrifices in their effort to counter extremism, and i am heartened by their efforts. there are other significant challenges that will be among my highest priorities if i am confirmed. among these is the respsible drawdown in iraq. continuing from 128,500 troops a year ago to the september target. and with our current commander,

the very able general odierno, i have unbridled confidence in general austin's leadership and i will set the broader conditions for his success when he takes the reins. iran offers the greatest long-term challenge in the region as it continues to threaten global stability by pursuing a nuclear weapons program and by funding, arming and training militant proxies throughout the region. the task of central command will be to counter the iranian resume's activities, to deter the regime from aggression and to work in concert with our partners in the region to advance our shared security interests. further, al qaeda and associated extremist groups po ahreat that spans the region and beyond. has threatened yemen and requires an integrated response that applies onstant pressure to all elements of the enemy network. if confirmed, i will leverage my experiences in the region over

the last 30 years to ethically carry out central command's missions. having been nominated for this position, i am mindful of the extraordinary privilege it has been to serve for over 38 years alongside american's finest young men and women. i will hold them foremost in my thoughts if you confirm me. i will provide my best military assessment to this committee and to our national security leadership. i want to thank the congress and the members of this committee in particular for your support over many years. thank you,r. chairman. >> thank you very much, general. we will have an eight-minute first round. i think there might be time for a second round if needed. general, in his speech at west point in december of last year, president obama announced a

surge of 30,000 additional u.s. troops by the end of this summer. he set the date of july 2011 for the beginning of reduction in our combat presence in afghanistan, but with the pace of those reductions to be determin by the circumstances at the time. is that your understanding of the president's policy and do you agree with it? >> yes, sir, th is my understanding, and i do agree with it. >> do you agree that one of the advantages of that is that it signals urgency to afghan aders and to the afghan ar that themust more and more take responsibility for their country, which is important to the success of our mission? >> sir, it brings the sense of urgency i think because it starts a process that is conditions-based. we can also moderate the enemy's

message that says we're there to occupy afghanistan. but the idea is a bottom-up -- not a top-down -- thinning out of our forces as we reach the conditions that permits a responsible turnover. so, again, it's a date when a process begins. it's not a hand-off of a hot pota potato. >> general, for some time, i pressed that more units of the afghan army that are considered the most effective move to kandahar where the challenge is perhaps the greatest and to also get them into the lead in operations down there. and when senator jack reed and i were there earlier this month, we need the very same point with president karzai, with the minister of defense, with the chief of their general staff with our visit to afghanistan. fense minister wardack wrote

to me saying that he agreed with that, and he has order two additional battalions and two commando battalions to support operations in kandahar because that is in the heart of taliban country. the area of their greatest strength. and so the afghan army will have more than 8,000 soldiers in kandahar by september of 2010. we've been told that the afghan army has broad popular support and that the afghan people want their army to be taking the lead in providing their secuty. first of all, do you agree that the afghan people generally have confidence in the afghan army and want them to provide their security where possible? >> yes, sir. i've seen the same thing on my trips over there, and i believe it is probably the most admired and respected part of the afghan government right now. >> and will it help achieve the success of the mission that

afghan army units can take the lead and join operations wherever possible? >> sir, i think i can quote you. this is the worst nightmare for the taliban, that the afghan army is increasingly effective, rtnered with our forces and moving against an enemy that they know better than anyone. i think this is very heartening. >> there's going to be a -- a major effort in the valley in the next -- actually it's already begun, perhaps. but the end of this month and the beginning of next month. it's going to be a joint afghan army,isaf operation. there's going to be 10,000 combined troops or more. the majority from the afghan army's 205th corps. the effort is to clear the area of insurgent domination. the commander of the afghan 205th corps announced publicly a

few weeks ago that his staff -- he and his staff had participated jointly in planning the campaign, that he'd signed the orders, and that his forces would be in the lead in the campaign. and i'm wondering whether or not you will be focusing some major attention soon as you're confirmed on that specific campaign? do you agree with what you know of its design? >> sir, until i'm confirmed, i'm not as familiar as i perhaps would be as the commander. however, the partnering effort that's under way, the jointness of it, the joint planning and the joint execution, and as you're aware, there's over 7,000 afghan soldiers in hakandahar, they're rapidly approaching the strength they need.

it sets the stage for a very successful campaign when they determine to kick it off. >> the recently concluded kabul conference, the participants endorsed the afghan government's plan developed with nato partipation for the phased transition to full afghan responsibility for security. now, that will be a -- a transition which will take many years, but the government of afghanistan and isaf will address jointly which provinces can be transitioned and they'll begin to do that, they expect, by the end of 2010. are you aware of that kabul conference announcement? and can you give us your reaction to the kabul conference generally, as to whether or not the fact that that conference was able to be able to be held

with relative calm demonstrates some progress. >> mr. chairman, i recognize that the network had decided the conference would not be held. they threatened to attack. as we all know, kabul has already transitioned to the afghan security forces, so they had the lead, the planning and the execution of providing protection for what was, i think, i very impressive showing of 57 nations and 11 international organizations coming to kabul. to pull off a conferenceike that in the midst ofhe kind of war this enemy is fighting where they attack innocent people and they actually attack the very people who are trying to come in and help is very emblematic of the kind of enemy we're up against, but also the international support. i think it was very healthy for president karzai to hear from all of them about the challenge of corruption. i think it was very hlthy for

them to be president karzai as a man who could deal maturely with the ternational organization. so i thought it was a very heartening conference. and i thought it was a real blow to the enemy that they were going to stop this. >> now, relative to the het nne cased in waziristan, they'reon the state department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. these groups and their senior leaders are involved deeply in supporting the ongoing insurgency in afghanistan. there's little question that they engage in terrorist activities to the detriment of the united states national security interest and to the coalition. designating those groups as foreign terrorist organizations or at a minimum, designating their senior leaders that way

would make certain tools available for limiting the financial and logistical support that they receive and also perhaps even more importantly would send a very important signal regarding the united states' serious concern with their activities including a signal to pakistan. genel, in your view, has the hakani network and the afghan taliban engaged in terrorist activities that threaten our security interest? and do you believe that those groups or at least their leaders should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations? >> mr. chairman, both those groups have engaged in terrorism. and i believe the leaders of both groups should be placed on the state department list. >> thank you. my time is up. senator mccain? >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, thank you, again, for your service. on the issue of the wikileaks,

what effect does the fact that these messages of information that were passed up the cin of command from the field, what effect does this publication of these secret communications, what effect does that have on the degree of candor that military officers and senior ncos in the field who are doing their best to report, what effect does this have on them? >> sir, i -- i would speculate but due to the urgency of the operations in a combat zone, it probably won't have much because at the moment they're actually

reporting. they're probably more eager to get the truth up the chain of coand. that said, i just thought it was a -- just a -- an appallingly irresponsible act to release this information. it didn't tell us anything that i' seen so far that we weren't already aware of. i've seen no big revelations. one of the newspaper headlines was that it's -- the war is a tense and dangerous thing. well, if that is news, i don't know who it's news to that's on this planet. so it would -- it would probably not help candor, but i think i'd be more concerned about allies being more -- than our own troops. >> so these leaks are certainly not helpful in you doing your job, particularly in accordination with our allies? >> that's correct, yes, sir. >> how many pakistani military

have been killed in operations against taliban and al qaeda in pakistan roughly? >> senator, i'll have to take that question for the record. howev however, i will tell you that my pakistani friends assure me they've lost more of their troops in the fight than nato has lost on their side of the border. >> i think it's in the hundreds. is that roughly correct? >> at least, sir. >> so we have been -- at least to a significant degree -- getting cooperation, assistance from the pakistani military? >> sir, i think we have a stronger strategic relationship and more support toy from the pakistani litary than we've enjoyed in ten years. it's trending in the right direction. they have sustained a 15-month counteroffensive, despite the casualties in some of the worst terrain i've ever operated in up

along the border area. and i think our counterterrorism cooperation is also at an all-time high. >> but there is also -- could that be because they're hedging their bets as to whether the united states is going to remain or not? >> sir, i need to get more current. however, history didn't start at 2001. ansome of those groups that we had a relationship with back when we were fighting the soviets. it's no surprise to me that there may be some continued relationship there, but whether or not it's because they're rking with thel, they're trying to infiltrate them, there's any number of motives. i'm not current enough to say why. i think it's hard to wipe the

slate clean and just start over at any onepoint and clearly the offensive against many of the people they allegedly used to work with is showing they're no longer friends with most of them. >> and let me just be clear again. you said that you were appalled at the publication of these -- that the wikileaks that just happened? >> yes, sir. i thought it was grossly irresponsible. so i won't ask you to coent the publications of the newspapers that chose to publish them. are you concerned as i have seen with my own eyes, the concern that exists in afgnistan and in the region about a date for withdrawal of the middle of next year? >> sir, i think that it is a misinterpretation that we would and we have to be very clear

that we're not leaving. that it starts a process of transition to theafghan forces. it is not that we are pulling out of the region. >> wouldn't that be mre impactful, your statement, if the president of the united states just said, quote, we're not turning out the lights and closing the door in the middle of next year? wouldn't it be helpful if the president of thenited states made clear what you've just said and what secretary o state and the secretary of defense have said? i don't expect you to answer that. are you satisfied with the withdrawal from iraq as it is on schedule? >> i am, sir. we have less than half the troops there today than we had a year ago. >> but you're satisfied that -- >> yes, sir. i'm impressed by the iraqi security forces and how they're keeping the enemy off balance

even during this traition of the government that's taking longer than we expected. >> what is your view -- or maybe you could inform us of -- we know about iranian involvement in iraq over time. what about reports of iranian -- increasing iranian involvement in afghanistan? >> sir, as best i understand it right now, sir, i think they're playing both sides against the middle. i think that they are supporting president karzai in some ways. i think they are also hedging their bets and up to their usual kind of spreading of terrorism. >> what about equipment and training? >> i need to get specific with you to answer that question, sir. but we are very sure that they have done some things counter to our interest, supporting people we are fighting. >> the last time we left a place at the urging of many on the

left was one of the -- not the last time, but one of the times was cambodia, and horrible things happened. what do you think the consequences will be for the general population, specifically women, if we leave and allow the taliban to return to power? and do you believe that al qaeda will work with them and reestablish a base for attacks on the united states? >> sir, i have no reason for optimism that if the taliban were left in control that al qaeda would not move back in. they did it before. i don't see any reason why they wouldn't do it again. as far as human rights abuse, senator mccain, this -- this taliban approach to running a country is well-known. they've demonstrated it for five years before we went in in 2001. we have seen the human rights

abuses. we're keenly aware that no girls went to school, to speak specifically to your question about the female population. no girls went to school for the five years they were in control until we came in. it was against their law. so i have no doubt that, again, the human rights abuses will be a challenge if we were to pull out. by that, i mean that they'll -- they'll return to their same ways. >> and there's no doubt that al qaeda would work, again, with taliban? >> yes, sir. they are not monolithic. there are ways to split off the reconcilables from the irreconcilables, but the leadership of taliban, i'm very confident, would work again with al qaeda. >> i thank you, general. thanks, again, for your service and your straight talk. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. senator webb? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, for the record here, i'd like to point out that

each military service has its own personalities, but there's no clear measure of a marine than to be trusted with the responsibility of command. if you look at general mattis' b biographical statement, i count, i think, at least 12 different levels of command in his career, which is really an extraordinary career. commanded a platoon, company, battalion, regiment, division, marine expeditionary force. i know we have someone here he knows how to lead, how to make decisions and how to accept responsibility for the consequences of his decisions. so i think this is a good fit for our country. i wish the general well. what i would like to do today, general, in the brief time that i have, rather than focusing on afghanistan, i know that you have a strong operational

partner there, someone who is already on the ground running. i'd like to ask your thoughts, first of all, about the diplomatic side of your job, for lack of a better term. you've got a military hat. you've also got a -- a responsibility to deal with a lot of civilian foreign leaders. what are your -- what are your thoughts on how to conduct that? >> thank you, senator webb. there is probably no problem in that region that can be addressed by a single country or working just with a single country. it's got to be a regional approach. it's also got to be a political military component in a holistic campaign. there is probably nothing over there that a purely military answer for will provide the long-term outcome that we need. so the diplomatic aspects have got to be ones that find common cause with those nations of like-minded principles or with

security issues that can find common cause with us and find a way bilaterally and ultimately in a regional manner to ensure that we really solve problems. we're not simply solving one to create another. so the diplomatic aspects will be, i think, foremost as we ensure that by being military ready, we send a message that we are staying in the theater, we are edngaged and we have the wil to do so. >> how do you see your role in that area? >> specifically meeting with the military leadership throughout the leadership and ensuring that we can build trust and confidence between us. >> i'd like to go to your written testimony. page 9, you have a paragraph that's titled "external influences." you make a very interesting statement. i'd like to hear your thoughts on this. i'll read it to you.

turkey, russia, china and india exert many influences in the region, some where the middle east peace process has a significant impact on the countries of the region and upon the ability -- would you comment -- your views on turkey, russia, china, india, and then the peace process, the middle east peace process? >> yes, sir. turk has been an ally of ours since the korean war when they fought alongside us. they stood by us through the cold war. they stood by us through sanctions against saddam at a time when it cost them economically, severe consequences to their country. they're the only nato country that is fighting an active insurgency in the southeast corner. and i believe there is a lot of room for us to continue to work together on common interests. it is part of ucom.

in regards to russia, i believe in the short-term we will continue to have our engagement policy with russia. i think russia is also threatened by some of the same things that disturb us. for example, terrorism in the southern belt,in the afghanistan area. and the drug trade. so there is room for common interest there to work with the -- with the russians. china, i noticed just recently acally bought more oil from saudi arabia than we did. it shows they have a deep economic interest in the area. they also are trying to assure themselves a certain raw materials that they need so there are going to be continuing economic interests. also, between piracy and the -- the challenge for them to remain

fully capable of getting oil out of the middle east, i think there are going to be opportunities for us to work together rengionally so if they stand by us in the united nations with united nations security council resolutions, sanctioning iran, they're not in effect cutting off their own oil. and finally, india, anything we do in the pakistan and afghanistan arena has got to be considered in terms of its effect on india. lastly, on the middle east peace process, there is a political cost to the stagnation. i think it allows radicals to seize the issue betweenhe israelis and the palestinians. and basically trap the moderates in the region. so i very strongly endorse what our state department is doing pursuing the two state solution with both sides. >> final question, as a

follow-up to that, we've got serious logistical challenges in afghanistan because of the logistical routes through pakistan and also through the other stans. do you see russia as now assisting us in cooperation in ameliorang that situation or do you see an obstacle there? >> i see russia helping us right now, sir, with the northern distribution network. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator enhoff? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i want to say, general mattis, that you did such a great job in the joint forces command. you'll be missed there. but this is probably even more challenges than your duties there. i think particularly the nine months or so ago, we spent some time, had a chae to look over the programs. look at our joint successes.

we'll continue to do that. i know you said in your opening statement, your main focus is going to be on the war in afghanistan. when i look at all the countries, i think that it's pretty overwhelming, what you're facing. a couple of interests that we have, one is in the -- i just got back a month ago from iraq. and i met with maliki and many generals. and then the person that i've always thought had the greatest leadership there is sali. went up into the norther part of iraq, had a chance to visit with him. and they, at that time, were optimistic they were going to be able to g together come somekind of coalition government. you've got the shia and the sunnis and the kurds up north.

have you had a chance -- anticipating getting into this job and looking to see wh i think is going to be one of the great challenges in that whole aor is some kind of a successful coalition government. what do you think the prospects are there? >> senator, i met with ambassador jeffries. i've talked with general austin and at length with general odierno. i think that it's taking longer than we or the iraqi people wanted to see this take, but it more important they get an inclusive government than a fast government right now. so the three issues that they must address, one is the potical future of those northern provinces. one is the oil distribution, the distribution of the oil funds that come out of both of those. touch right to the heart of your -- your question. i think right now that we're on

the right track. i think in some ways that slow pace may give us more confidence when we finally see it report out. we have a government that it's going to be able to take on the political futures in a responsible way. >> yeah. and you talk about coordinating with the north. do you see just in -- you've thought about it and you've looked at the leadership qualities of difrent people. do you see a role for sali to play in a new coalition government that might help in that respect in terms of up north? >> sir, i think he is very impressive in his qualifications. but i, of course, defer to the -- >> sure. i understand that. >> yes, sir. >> the -- this committee cut a billion dollars from the president's request -- $2 billion from the iraqi security

forces fund. you know, a lot of people are -- you've mentioned briefly the fact that there is going to be a potential of oil revenues coming in. however, i've been told that iraq will have a $4 billion budget deficit in 2010. it will take iraq four to five years until it can fund itself. do you -- what impact would the $1 billion cut have? or have you had a chance to look at that and development any ideas? >> senatori need to look at it more losely. the most important thing is that we have an iraqi security force that can pick up and carry forward as we continue to draw down. the budget deficit, they do run a budget deficit this year. they will. and they are spending right now, i believe, it's around 15 of their national budget on

security. so it's not that they're just dropping this to us and expecting us to pick it up. so however we keep the iraqi security forces at the top of their game so as we move out, a stable, successful iraq is left inur ke, i think it's critical. >> i think it's -- i apreciate your saying that. because we hearabout, well, they have all these revenues. it's as if they're not trying to do it on their own and going over and talking to the leadership that they are. and also i see progress there in terms of these forces. whether it's the tribal forces against each other, coming back together. i thought when senator mccain mentioned iran, he was going to ask the question that i had in mind, but he went in a different direction. i've been concerned for quite some time. iran iin your region. we have known or have said that iran most likely will have the

icbm, the capability, the weapon and the delivery system by -- as early, they said, as 2015. and then just the other day when cia director panetta said -- he was talking about whenhey would have the material and then moving it forward, it came to closer to about 2013. so we know they've got the capability. we know they've got an aor that woulbe affected by that. my concern that i voiced from this table several times has been -- addressing it relative to pulling out the -- the ground-based interception capability in poland. but right now, as this date moves forward and we're looking at maybe 2015 or earlier, what is your assessment of iran and its impact on the aor?

>> if they continue in their current direction, sir, they can only have a negative impact. we're looking at a country that's undiminished in its forts to enrich uranium, to oppress their own people and to support murderous proxy units all over the region. this is becoming emblematic of them. and it is unhelpful in the extreme to stability there in the region. >> all right. now, in your previous job, you didn't address my concerns, but you will have to addrs -- i'm talking about programs that i've talked about before such ashe train and equip program, the 1206, the 1208, the program that has been cut a little bit. every time i talk to commanders in the field, they talk about how valuable that program is. have you looked at these progms to see if -- what your feelings are now in it ups of how significant they are? i'm talking about the ccif, the

train and equip program, and those. >> these programs are absolutely cr critical, sir. we cannot afford to be the world's policemen and carry it all ourselves. these programs proceed the seeds to allow others to do their share. they want to do it. in some cases, just access to our technology and training and equipping them so they can do their own thing. the program for urgent humanitarian reasons allows us to go in and make an immediate impact. these are great adaptive programs that allow us to checkmate our enemies. >> it can be worth four times the normal process of going all the way through the steps and getting it done later. i know you'll be looking at these programs. you're certainly the right man for the job and look forward to working with you over there. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. general mattis, let me first state the obvious. you're one of the most parkable combat leaders we have. and one of the most thoughtful

students of strategy in the professional arms. i have every confidence that you'll be a remarkable commander. let me proceed from that standpoint. our initial engagement in this region was prompted by the need to protect the united states from terrorist groups that were operating there butith a worldwide reach. regrettably even into the united states. in your views, is that still our number one strategic priority? >> yes, sir, it does. the enemy is not monolithic. we have to adapt to how the enemy has adapted. yes, sir. >> in the carrying out of that responsibility to meet that strategic objective, the question that i pose to general petraeus and i'll pose to you is is it your view that our presence in afghanistan is necessary to -- >> there's no doubt in my mind,

sir. >> even though what we know is that some of these groups have migrated into pakist and elsewhere in the region and indeed our initial opponents, al qaeda, have now sort of morphed into copycat groups, into a much more despaisparate network. is that fair? >> i think that's exactly on target, sir. >>ow, there's a lot of discussion about what we want to achieve in afghanistan. could you give me a general idea of what your view of a successful end state would be in pakistan -- excuse me, in afghanistan, general. >> i think the president put it very well when he said with afghanistan, pakistan, and our 46 international partners, we are basically going to break the taliban's momentum. we're going to relentlesy attack al qaeda. we're going to build the afghan and pakistani capability to carry on once we pull out of there. so i think if you look at those

three points that the president outlined, sir, that outlined the overarching strategy. obviously we have a military and a political component to our strategy, and the military is well integrated and increasingly well integrain integrated with civilian component, something that i probably could not have said so strongly a year ago, but we've made a lot of progress, sir. >> with regard to this end state, one of thehings that strikes me as the most critical is building afghanistany capacity in the most -- they have to build security forces. both afghan national and afghan poce. is that your view also? >> yes, sir. absolutely. >> do you have a -- an assessment initially about how well we're doing? i must confess over the last eight years, the record of building afghany security forces has been not even mixed. it's been hit and miss, start

and stop. do you believe that we're on the right trajectory? and will, mre importantly, will we be able in a reasonable amount of time to field adequate forces so that they can relieve our presence or at least substitute for our presence? >> senator reed, we are on the right track now. i think we've got the organizational construct right. that has the four-star strategic commander there in general petraeus. we have a three-star lieutenant general caldwell who is responsible for this training, advising equipping effort. and we have actually as the chairman pointed out, we are three months ahead on the recruiting target. we're already at the october goal right now of 134,000. this is for the army. so we're making progress today. i think in a way that we have been unable to make it in the past.

we did a lot of things right in the past. the afghan police who we started later, frankly, with our responsibility there, and i think it's on the right track now. but no longer do we recruit, assign and then try to train them on the job. today we recruit them, we train them and then assign them. the sense of urgency in the past combeated with the longer-term effort. i think we learned a lesson there. but we're on the right track now, sir, and they will be able to take over from us. in kabul, they alady have transitioned to afghan control, afghan leadership, and they were able to pull off that very complicated conference last week. the terrorist said that would not happen and they lost to the afghan security forces. i thought that was very telling. >> there will be a transition point next summer. that transition point is not a

withdrawal, but it is a transition to a different mission. one way, at least i think about it, is moving from an emphasis on counterinsurgency to an increasingly important emphasis on counterterrorism. is that your approach, too? or could you -- >> i think that -- that is the approach, senator, in each -- because we're going to have to work this from the bottom up, some districts and provinces will transition much faster than others. that's the norm in this kind of war. but that is the right approach. the conditions on the ground will determine the pace of transition. >> right. and asou've pointed out, too, this -- this is not a strictly, indeed, perhaps even most importantly a military operation as a combined military/civilian operation. it struck me on my visits that we have invested appropriately a

lot of effort in the ministries in kabul, but do you think we should be devoting more time to a more decentralized approach that will engage tribal leaders, that will recognize that even if we can develop effective ministerial capacity, there's a huge gap between kabul and every place else that we're fighting. ? >> senator reed, violence and progress coexist in afghanistan. sometimes the violence blinds us to the progress. it's so heart-breaking to see innocent people murdered for no reason by an enemy that fights among innocent people. but that said, i think the recent decision even since general petraeus arrived in cobble continuing general mcchrystal's efforts, the continuity of the strategy with the ambassador of the uk being the nato senior civilian

representative, with president karzai -- and it was president karzai's decision to decentralize and have a local security force stood up now, very heartening, very consistent with the line of thinking that you're proposing, sir. >> one of the realities that certainly caught me by surprise seven or eight years ago when i first went into the theater was the presence both real and imaginary of the indians in afghanistan, particularly from the pakistani perspective, which meads me to this sort of functional question. your responsibility embrace afghanistan and pakistan, but india is a keyactor in what happened in pakistan and in afghanistan. is this pacific command structure -- how do you sort of bridge that -- i would argue in

some cases it's an artificial gap between your responsibilities and other spanders' responsibilities? >> to ensure there are no gaps. i spoke with admal willard yesterday in preparation for this hearing. and if you confirm me, we agreed to work very closely together. wecannot do something on one side of a combatant commander's boundary that complicated the other. we're committed to working together and it will be the closest collaboration between pacific command and central command if you confirm me. what we don't want to do is ignore the reality that it's a regional problem, that pakistan has had a very difficult history with india. india has shown great forbearance under some enormous pressure. at the same time,fghanistan and pakistan have got to be able to work together. and so it is complicated, but it's the normal -- the normal state of things in the world.

we can overcome any little boundary issues between pacific command and central command. >> let me conclude with a very quick hypothetical. ed? the government of pakistan together with the united states -- nato actually -- effectively control their border, suppress the hakani network? the operational tactical situation afghanistan would be remarkably improved or marginally improved or not effected? >> senator reed, the pakistanis have moved against many of our common enemies. i think there is a growing amareneamare ne -- awareness that these -- what can conveyed as poisonous snakes in the garden don't only bite other people's kids. they go after everyone. i think in the -- in the longer run as they are able to amass what they need in terms of

political will and military capability that we will work against the common enemies. >> thank you very much, general. senator brown? >> thank you, senator reed. general, first of all, congratulations. i'm looking forward to casting my vote for you. i'm hopeful that the chairman will take this up as quickly as we took up general petraeus' confirmation. i think it's very, very important for the security of the region, the security of our troops and the security of our country. i did note with interest the recent article that you were looking forward to growing onions in your spare time when you retired. i don't think that's going to be happening any time soon. thank you for steppi up and stepping to the plate again. just a couple of questions. i want to give my colleagues time also. when i was in afghanistan/pakistan, obviously i was very aware of the conflict

in afghanistan, but i also sens sensed that water is the lifeblood of pakistan and india. there's a dam being built that potentially will divert water. what do you see the military's role in trying to calm down th -- that -- that brewing conflict or potential conflict between those two countries over water rights? do you see any involvement, anything that you could be doing? >> senator, they have -- as we all know, they fought several wars over a number of issues. there's the kazmir issue, there's any number of attacks. but the most important that we can do is the diplomatic efforts, to help bring the corps of both militaries together and create trustetween them.

allow them to perhaps attend our school together. as they do, they get to know each other there and even do some of the things we've done else where around the world, where we bring different sides during frozen conflicts together. for example, at the army school at leavenworth or up at carlisle barracks and let them study our civil war together. then they start warming up. i think there are ways for us to build trust that will help stabilize these issues. it's fundamentally a political problem, not a military one, of urse. >> thank you. with regard to a lot of the folks that have been released, we have about 28,000 people who were detained and have been reintegrated. have you noticed -- i knowou haven't necessarily been dealing with it, but have you noticed what the recidivism rate is with these folks? have they been getting back into the battle at all? anything you can comment on at all? >> i'm not current on theit iss

right now, senator. there has been some recidivism over the years that i've served there, but it's gotten better as conditions in the society got better. you've seen the plummeting nature of the attack profile where the attacks have dropped off significantly. so obviously the reintegration is going somewhat well, but that would -- i would never say there's no recidivism at all. i think that would be -- that would be unrealistic. >> i know when i was there, i was -- t sense i got from the coalition forces, the troops, the tribal leaders, the police, the armies, everyone was training, patrolling, being housed, eating, doing everything together. you know, it was creating a sense that, you know, we want -- we weren't there as occupiers. we generally want them to do well. i love the fact that they want to do everything and be everything and be the head of everything, but with all due

respect, until -- you know, until they can show, i think, us and the coalition forces and their citizens that they can do that, you know, we have to be there. have you noticed that -- well, let me backtrack. are you continuing to push that plan? is it being tweaked by general petraeus? what is your thought on that plan and whether it's the wayo move forward and ultimately get us out of the region? >> sir, partnering is absolutely the right way to go. it has worked well everywhere we've done it. sometimes it's better that they do something imperfectly than we try to come in and do it perfectly because they know the people. in the long run, they're actually probably doing it better. i was looking at the reports of casualties and incidents the other day. i was impressed by the fact that 80% of the contacts with the enemy, 80% were out of partnered units. that's just a snapshot. i don't want to say that's a --

take that to the bank indicator of how we're doing things over there every day, but when you look at how the enemy is fighting right now, they're running into more and more units that are partnered together and gaining that maturity you're talking about. >> is it an accurate statement that the -- that the taliban, al qaeda, or the enemy, however it's constituted in that region are using civilians as shields and so some of the casuaies that we're being part of are a result of that -- that use civilians in the battlefield? >> sir, this enemy has no regard for the innocent on the battlefield. during the period from 1 june to

10 july, 89% of the people killed and wounded over there in the midst of this fighting were killed or wounded by the enemy. they have no regard for innocent people. they do not fight by any conventions. they don't care -- they have opened apocalypticially who the think they can attack. it's the same theme that you see time after time of them declaring that basically they don't care about the innoct. they fight intentionally from among innocent people. at times i think they draw fire on them if they fire back. >> how do you get that message out and win that kind of media battle where, you know, you have to let people know and understand that a lot of the casualties that are happening, when you hear about civilian deaths in afghanistan, you say oh, man, the military is messing up. but in reality, i'm aware of it. they're using them as shields.

how do you with your team get that message out to the -- to the rest of the world that we're actually being very judicious as to -- i mean, the rules of engagement are -- are very concerning to the troops. they're very concerned about when to fire, when not to fire. and the times that they're putting themselves in jeopardy. how do we get that message out? and win that battle of, you know, of koconfidence to let th know we're doing the right thing and we're there to do the right thing? >> yes, sir. i think we have to display the data more, we have to talk about more. frankly, i think we need more political leadership to display it as well since there are times when you are speaking in venues that generally you don't find military people in. and i think it's got to be a full-court press as we get this information stributed. but also in our military role, we have toake certain we're discussing this in international forums. the bottom line is we have the most ethically grounded

military, i think, in the mystery of warfare. and yet somehow we are not getting the message out that we are the good guys. we're not the perfect guys, but we are the good guys. we're fighting people who have a much less -- much less concern for the innocent. >> well, there is a perfect guy and in talking to him, he's the perfect guy for the job, so i wish you well, general. thank you. >> thank you, senator brown. senator ben nelson? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general. i've been a long-time advocate for the use of benchmarks to measure progress. first in iraq and now in afghanistan and pakistan. in the role of the commander, i'd like your assurances that you would -- you'll ensure the benchmark reports continue to be delivered to congress in a timely and honest assessment of our progress there. and with regard to our

operations in afghanistan, what are the key metcs that you'll focus on to ensure that we're on the right track, that our strategy is sound and that our progress, though it may be slow, can lead us to a successful end game in afghanistan because, f after all, that is what our purpose for being there consists of. and perhaps as well, what are the biggest challenges in -- in promoting regional stability? i know you've answered that to some degree already. >> sir, on the benchmarks report, i will ensure that they get to you and i'll personally check on it to make sure that we're timely on that. the real challenge, senator nelson, is tha what often counts most in war is the most difficult to quantify. and so we sensed, for example, in western iraq that we were

going to tur the province against the enemy. but it took months before it showed up in stistics. and you don't want to be behind the statistics out there. you want to be dealing with the people in the current fight and their current perceptions. so what we're ging to have to do is quantify to the point we can what is the size of the army, how many engagements, how many patrols are they running, how much of this is really transitioning in reali, not just to check the block that the unit exists. this sort of thing. and make certain that at some point we apply our military adjustment so we're giving you a mature assessment, not just a pure it's the broader issues, obviously, we've got al qaeda. they pinned down. they haven't been able to do as many operations. it's pruz because they've fallen in love with us.

it's because they're trying to survive. we're going to have to press against the taliban in thei heartland, both politically and militarily. we're going to have to break them. from irreconcilable to reconcilable. if they're irreconcilable, we'll neutralize them. if they're reconcilable. if they'll work for the government and the constitution, then there's going to be a home to them. all wars come to an end and we've got to make sure we give them a way to end early. the larger issues i think i'm concerned with in the region have to do with iran. it is representative of that leadership that they treat their own people with the same level of oppression that they do externally, where they fund terror groups. i think it shows they're one in the same, internal and external. it's not drawn sufficient

censure from the u.n. security council where you see nations as different as china, russia, france, u.s. voting together. and the european voted to sanction them even further, restrict further their visas. so iran is, i think, the digger long-term state threat. and it is becoming increasingly isolated by its approach. >> i'm encouraged by your discussion about the use of earmarks, or ofenchmarks to identify progress of a certain type. and and in that regard, it's helpful because you have people who say we're winning and people who say we're losing. looking at the same set of circumstances it's hard for them both to be right at the same time. but we can begin to debate whether we're 60 towards the reduction in the number of missions taken by the enemy.

where we realize that they're not able to continue at the level they were before. so that kind of information is helpful to anybody. . in pakistan, in your remark to the committees, you said that pakistan is the highest priority, citing that the tribal areas provide them a safe haven and the pakistanis have begun to take significant step in addressing extremists within their borders. is it possible to describe the effectiveness of our military cooperation with afghanistan over the last six months. obviously the information

released unfortunately would lead to believe previously were not effective with cooperation between our forces and their forces because of what might have been double dealing. but do we think that the military cooperation with pakistan and our relationship with them has improved over the last six months? >> significantly, senator. both in counterterror and in the counterinsurgency effort. i think we have growing trust and relationships also between the afghans and the pakistani military. >> i would imagine the goal is that they take over more of a responsibility directly. >> yes, sir, exactly.

>> sir, they have sustained a military offenses in some of the worst terrain i've ever seen and ainst record snow falls. they've sustained very high casualties amongst their junior officers and that's usually a strong indication that they're the aggressive ones who are going after the enemy. so it's really, i think, quite impressive what they've pulled off right now. >> with respect to nato, 1/3 of the isaf is composed of the international partr forces and our nay co allies have made commitments to providing forces. on the whole, what is your view of the strength of the commitment of this international coalition? and what will be your priorities in helping develop the regional support tt's necessary for success in afghanistan? >> sir, with 40-odd nations there with forces committed, and that includes some 40,000

non-u.s. troops from nato primarily and organized around the nato flag, that obviously includes noncontributing nations, for example, australia, we're seeing, i think, very effective operations. now, it's often said the only thing more difficult than fighting a war with allies is fighting one without them. it's not that there's not any friction, but when you look, for example, the very mature german operations up in the northern sector, as we make certain that the enemy can't find a new home there under increasing pressure in the eastern and southern areas, when you look at those kind of performances and those are the romanians, the astonians, these are countries that will are fighting alongside us. thousands of kilometers from europewhere we initially set nato up to fight. so i think it's going well. we also have 71% of their 9,700 re-enforcements already on the ground. frankly, that's ahead of where i thought it would be right now.

so besides our 85% of our 30,000 there, we're seeing this coalition re-enforcement coming in, and also the civilians. we'll get the civilian piece of it, right. and at the same time, on the pakistani side of the board e, we see thepakistani army in active operations in a number of regions against the enemy. this is coming together in a regional way with numbers of countries, international effort working together. and just as we can all recall when the soviet union went into afghanistan, there was one country there. today there's 40-odd, and we just saw the u.n. and the european union give an even more diplomatic strength to it. i think we're on the right track. >> general, thank you for oiding retirement. i know you were probably looking forward to going into retirement, but we really appreciate you taking on this responsibility.

in all those years of deployment, training, engagement on your behalf will serve the country well. do you have any idea how 90,000 documents could get missing or, taken from the pentagon and given tot press? >> sir, i could only speculate and i hate to do that in front of this committee. >> yeah. i just hope we find out what happened because that's not a very comfortable feeling knowing that 90,000 classied documents could somehow leave the pentagon or wherever they were supposed to be. i think it's important for the american people to understand what lies ahead, don't you, general, in afghanistan? >> absolutely. >> it's going to be a tough road. >> yes, sir. >> the outcome is uncertain. we want to win, we should win, but you just got to do the things to win.

winning won't come by just talking about it, will it? >> no, sir, lit not. >> can the american people expect more of their sons and daughters in terms of increased casualties, the death rate is going to go up? the casualty rate in afghanistan? >> yes, sir, and i believe it will be a difficult summer right into the fall. >> as a matter of fact, the american people need to brace themselves for increased casualties in afghanistan. in terms of cost of the war, we're about to pass the supplemental, 30 $30 billion, $40 billion, $50 billion. after a while, it gets all blurry. we're going to have to spend more money in afghanistan in the near and long term, is that correct? >> we will, sir. and hopefully reinforce the by the international community. >> secretary gates said nato has been awful when it comes to the afghan security forces. there's a fund that was created where nato nations and other countries would contribute to paying for the cost of training the afghan army and police

force. secretary gates aid that fund has accumulated 200 million euros, which i think is pretty pitiful. can you take this on in your new assignment to try to urgour colleagues to contribute more? if you can't send troops, if you're going to leave,t least help us financially. the american peoe need to understand right now, we're paying for the afghan army and policeorce in great measures, is that correct. >> the entire dugt for afghanistan is about $1 billion a year is that correct? the actual budget for the country? >> i believe need to look. >> do you know what it takes to train and equip the afghan army? >> no, sir, i do not. >> i think it's somewhere in the $6 billion to $10 billion range. not only are we going to have more casualties, we're going to

be paying for their army, their police force, and ours. my estion to you, is it worth it from a national security perspective? >> sir, i believe it was worth it when i first went into afghanistan in november of 2001, right after 9/11. and although the years ve gone by since we lost those people in new york and washington, i believe it's still just as worth it today. >> all right. let's dig into this a little bit about where we're at as a nation, vis-a-vis afghanistan. how many tanks dot taliban have? >> sir, after about december of 2001, zero. >> how many airplanes do they have? >> none, sir >> how in the world are they able to come back? here we are in 2010. and some people say they're stronger than they've ever been. how in the world did that happen if they don't have an air force,

navy, o a armored divisions. how could they do that this? >> they've chose ton fight a fferent kind of war. it's not a conventional war. it's not a conventional war. they've chose ton hide among innocent people. they've got an ideology that they stand on, and there were times when we were not sufficiently resourced in terms of counterinsurgency to throw them off their game. >> when i was in afghanistan not very long ago, we met with leaders in the kandahar region. these were different community leaders. they were all me but they did speak pretty bluntly. they told us the enemy consists of two groups, the taliban and the government from afghanistan from their point of view. and they thought that the problem was 30% the taliban and 70% the afghan government. what's your view of that?

>> kandahar was the spiritual home of the taliban and it still has the strong residue as the primary location for them. i was first there again in december of 2001, found many of the same ideas. however, it is interesting, even there, once we go into an area and we stay there, they prefer us. this is from any number of people. going in and out of areas, and having the wrong people in charge has cost us credibility. but also if you go, for example, to marjah, only a few 15 clol ters further to the west, an area held by the taliban for years, they changed their view once we came in and stayed. >> you made a good comment, i think, about having the wrong people in charge. we all make mistakes, but do you believe it's possible to win in southern afghanistan without some major shake-ups in the

afgh afgh afghan govr nance without people being fired? is it remotely possible for us to win unless somebody new comes in unless somebody else comes in on the afghan sigh. >> i'm not current enough. i've been out for quite a few months. that said, you've got to have competent and credible people. that's why the taliban is using assassination right now. they're taking them out to try to maintain a less effective afghan government, sir. >> there are about four families pretty much running the place down there. and you promise to be caid and i kn you will, so the next time you come bere the committee, be prepared to answer the question, do we have wally

karzai, the problem or the solution? is there commitment on the afghan government's part to clean house where they need to clean hse. and if you can remember that question and come back afr a reasonable period of time, i think would help the committee and the american people. i can tell you one thing, general. we can clear anywhere. we're not going to hold unless the afghan governnt has the same desire to change their country as we do. and i look forward to hearing your thoughts on how that's progressing. >> yes, sir. i will get back to you, sir. i think that -- well, isle get back to you. i don't think the taliban is as loved down there as some people portray them to be, because they've also lived under taliban rule. and i was not rejected when i walked the streets there right

after we threw them out. >> thank you, senator graham. senator goodwin. >> as the newest member this commit teent senate, i want to thank my colleagues and pose a questiono you, general. during my admittedly brief tenure in the senate, one thing i hope to contribute is giving voice to our brave men and women in uniform, particularly those from my home state of west virginia. as you may be aware,general, west virginia is among t top states in military volunteers per capita andhere have been over 10,000 deployments from west virginia guard members since 9/11. west virginians are no strangers to hard work and sacrifice. if there's a job to do to protect this country, west rginians are often a part of it. get we're acutely aware we're engaged in two ground barps as

the challenges grow, so do the stakes. i think the people of west virginia want to make sure our strategies are working, we're moving in the right direction and we're delivering the best possible results for our national security. in my short week in this esteemed body, i've obviously undertaken a wide range of pretty important sponsibilities, perhaps none of which, however, is more important than our function here today, an ongoing conversation regarding our role in the centm region, especially afghanist afghanistan. as recent news events have suggested and senator graham alluded to you, there's been some questions as to what our objective would be. my question to you, how do you suggest i properly weigh our objectives we're seeking to achieve in afghanistan against the loss of american life and the substantial resources we are devoting there?

. >> every loss that we've taken is a tragedy, and i deeply sympathize with the families that have paid this cost. i think that when you say why, you know, is itorth it? we have to look at what the enemintends to do. they've been very candid. they've demonstrated in their actions what they intend. and they've demonstrated itrom new york city to london. from washington, d.c. to mumbai. this is an enemy we're going to have to confront. i think that's a harsh reality. the strategy that we have is a regional strategy. it is a civilian mlitary strategy. it has both political and it's got security aspects to it. they are integrated. in afghanistan, i believe i can say with much more assurance today than i could have a year ago, they are integrated with ambassador mark sedwell of the

uk being the leader or the counterpart. they're integrating the civilian piece. we're moving against the enemy. we're doing those things that will allow us to see true progress and eventually bring our troops home and leaving more of an advise and assist capability there in our wake. >> thank you, general. >> thank you, senator goodwin. senator lemieux. >> gener, thank you for your service to this country. thank you again for coming to the plate to serve your country in a very important role, and on behalf of florida, welcome to -- i know upon your confirmation, welcome to central command in florida. we're excited to have you. i just was talking to the tampa chamber of commerce, and they're ready to welcome you to

hillsboro county. and it's important to us in florida to have the relationship we have with the military, as think you know from the world's largest air force base to i guess 22 or 23 military installation, including three commands one of which you will preside over. the military means a lot to florida. and floridians love the military, and i just want to say on behalf of my home state, we look forward to having you upon your confirmation. i want to talk about a wide variety of different topics. i want to start first with afghanistan and follow up with you on a point that general petraeus and i have talked about before, and that is information operations. this goes back to the point that senator brown was making about trying to get the word tout afgh afghanis that when the taliban comes in and says we killed all these children or we've done something horrible that we haven't done that we're getng the word out as quickly and effectively as possible that's

not true and here's the real truth of the case. when i went to afghanistan, i met with a colonel kraft who i believe now is back from afghistan. but he was working with the afghan commandos and he was working with local, territorial governor and they were putting up radio stations. they were passing out leaflets, they were meeting with local commanders, and village leaders to make sure they had a network of people to get the word out so that when the taliban tried to lie about what we were doing, we could respond quickly and effectively. and i just want to encourage you, that that effort is extremely important to stay focused that, that there's a lot -- there was a lot of room for improvement in that. i know general petraeus was focused on that and had done a good job in iraq so i want to highlight that issue for you. this is outside of your aor, but since this is the first time i had a chance to talk to you in this setting, i want to put this on your radar screen.

i talked to general frazier about this several times and it's in his aor but it's in a link with yours. that's the growing threat that i think venezuela poses to this country. the reason why i mention this to you is because there's a connection between venezuela and iran. there are direct flights between teheran and caracas. we know that hezbollah and hamas have set up shop in latin erica. and i'm very concerned that hugo chavez is going to play by the same playbook as ahmadinejad. so again, not in our aor, but i take the opportunity i can with everyone that i can to raise this topic, especially because it links up with iran, which is in your area of responsibility. let me ask you some questions now. i want to switch gears a little and talk about the horn of africa and also about yemen,

because as weave been successful against al qaeda afghanistan, i know that they have taken uproot in pakistan and we also know that al qaeda is in yeme as well as in the horn of africa. and i wanted to ask you about what your focus will be on those areas, what more we can do, what's the current state of affairs in our efforts in both yemen and in somalia and also other parts of the horn of africa. >> thank you, senator lemieux. and i agree 100% on information operations. it does us no good to win the tactical battle and lose it at the strategic communications level, and we are committed to that. lock, stock and barrel. on iran-venezuela, i register your concern a i have no argument with you. it has my attention. regarding yemen first, we are working a civilian military with

yemen. it's, as you know, a very poor country. it's got severe water problems. it's got an internal rebellion, and of course, it's got the aq, the terrorists that are a thrt not just to yemen but also next door to saudi arabia. we are working in as cohesive a way, civilian diplomatic military role as we can, considering the capacity of the cotry to take on support. but i think it's going the right direction right now. it's going to be a problem. we are going to have to address it i think in league with some friends in the region that can also assist. as far as the horn of africa, as you know, it's under afrakaikan but if you look at possible links with al-shaabab, we are going to have to get to a point of collaboration that the enemy

doesn't find a seam between cent-com and africom nd i'm committed to doing that. >> that's the point i wanted to raise with you. they're so close, trafficking between the two places. i look forward to traveling to the region later this year and learning more about what our efforts are. but the use of, you know, our predator aircraft and other unmanned vehicles and everything needs to be done. what we saw with the christmas day bomber that came, you know, the new terrorists are going to come from regions outsidef afghanistan. we have to be ready for the next war. you know the expression better than i do. you don't just fight the last war, we've got to be ready for the next war.

if i can switch gears again. sorry i'm all over the place, but i only have a short amount of time to ask you questions. a program you were watching closely called imminent fury. the navy committed a reprogramming request for the second phase of this program, denied for a bunch of fferent reasons. and you were supportive of the program at the time. i don't know if that's still your opinion i wanted to check with you and see if you think that's a program worthwhile pursuing.. >> yes, sir, i thought it was at the time, and i still do. it's a test program to see if we can use turbo prop planes to replace much more expensive plane, but more importantly, more effectively in the counterinsurgency environment. t there's an awful lot of data we would have to collect. that's why i wanted to do the test but yes, sir, i'm still supportive of it. i think i need to build some support for it. >> okay. thank you, general. >> thank you, general.

if we can be of any service to you, i had a great relationship with general petraeus and want to have one equally with you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lemieux. >> i have a few questions, but if others do not, we'll end our confirmation hearing. on private security contractors in afghanistan, they're creating huge problems for us. they threaten our security in very, very real ways. in response our advanced policy questions, you wrote you believe the transition from private security contractors to the afghan security forces will occur gradually. and at the direction and encouragement of the afghan government. just to share with you a coup of conversations senator reid and i had, first with general carter, the commander of the isaf forces

in the region and regional command south, and with general rodriguez, our commander of the isaf joint command, both those generals expressed real determination to go after the contractors. because of the harm that they're causing to us. they are threatening the security of our own troops in a whole host of ways. they solicit bribes, they extract fees for convoys that are traveling through territory instead of actually protecting our own convoys as they're supposed to be doing. they are often part of schemes that make us less secure, which we have to hire them to provide security. it's a vicious circle.

the road north of kandahar he said is going to be free of these kind of war lord dominations. and general rodriguezfl-out said we're going to end it. so i just want to let you know there's real determination there on the ground, with our commanders to go after these security contractors who threaten our own well being. and i think i mentioned to you the armed services committee has an ongoing investigation which is close to the operations of so many of these security contractors in the way in which our own taxpayers money in effect end up making our own troops less secure, endangering em, costing taxpayers money in the process. that's just for your information.

i hope you'll really add -- give some support to that effort. secondly, we're going to continue to have involvement in iraq. i want to just highlight to you the religious minorities in iraq as i mentioned in the office. the u.s. commission on international religious freedom concluded last may that, quote, systemic, ongoing and egregious religious freedom violations continue in iraq and that the religious freedom situation in iraq remains grave, particularly for the country's smallest, most vulnerable religious minorities. what they're referring to is the christian community in iraq. they're in a very fragile situation. they need whatever kind of support in various ways we can

provide to them. i want to make sure that's on your radar as well. you are, i think, similar swa with that situation as we talked. if you have any comment on that, we welcome it. >> i think the pace of putting the government together may actually be indicating they're trying to put an inclusive government together, and i think that's fundamental to protecting minorities rights. the advise and assist mission the u.s. military will continue to carry forward as you know in september on out will permit us to really, i think, make clear that the ethical use of force and the protection of all iraqis is the job of the iraqi security force, and i think there's nothing better than demonstring that as we go forward to try and make an impression that that's their job, that's the rule ofaw and protection of everyone is a

testimonial to their own professionalism. >> that's very portant, even though our presence will be reduced is not going to be ending. >> the imptance of govr nance down through kandahar and afghanistan, iouldn't agree with him more. in that regard, what senator jack reed and i found when we got there is something which in a way surprises me. i'll ner lspeak for him. when we talked to the mayor and governor of kandahar, impressed

us with their independence. their outspokenness against corruption. they made no bones about it public publicly. it's not just in a private meeting with us. their lives are on the line whenever they do that. next door they were assassination naited. what we could tell is kind of reassuring. in the province, where you have evidencef significant corruption. from the impress we've got is there's a courageous corruption down there that's opposed to corruption. and you have a mayor in the city that's outspoken as well against it. the willingness to go after the corruption which the afghan people are so sick of and which really jeopardizes their success.

it's not just our mission, it's their mission which we're helping them to succeed with. sometimes in our rhetoric, we talk as though this is our country and it clearly is a country we care about. it's a country whose sovereignty belongs to others and our role there is to make sure that sovereignty is not destroyed by an extreme group, the taliban, which again would give safe haven, and i agree with you, to al qaeda, if the taliban ever came back into power. not only the focus in terms of governan governance, but down in kandahar, if our impression is correct, there's some people willing to put their lives on the line to take on the corruption which has been so endemic.

senator goodwin, do you have any more questions? >> no, mr. chairman. okay in that case, we thank you for your service. we can try to see if we can't get you on the job here, just as quickly as possible. hopefully in a matter of days. but i know there's very broad support and very strong support for your nomination. so we'll try to take this to the senate floor as quickly as we can get a quorum together her so we can g the >> and we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> tomorrow, the special representative to pakistan and afghanistan richard holbrooke will talk about aid to afghanistan. he is scheduled to testify at a house appropriations sub some -- subcommittee. you can watch it live on c- span3, and c-span.org. coming up next on c-span, i house hearing on how cold coast tourism has been affected by the oil spill. education secretary arne duncan talks about the national race to the top program. and the national league of cities issues a report on job cuts in local government. >> consumer advocate and wartime presidential candidates ralph nader is our guest on book tv.

he has written a novel. join us for our conversation on consumer protection, corporate accountability, and political activism with ralph nader sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. >> now hearing on how cold toast -- gulf coast tourism has been affected by the oil spill. witnesses include kenneth feinberg, the administrator of the compensation fund. tourism industry accounts for 1 million jobs in the gulf region and $39 billion in annual tax receipts. this hearing of the house subcommittee is 2.5 hours.

everyone will be encouraged to limit their opening remarks to two top -- two minutes because of consideration of time. on april 20, a date for the gold coast region of the analysis. a 11 workers died following an explosion on the deepwater horizon drilling oil rig located 20 miles off the coast in the gulf of mexico. since that tragic day, an

estimated 150 mullion gallons of oil have leaked into the gulf, severely damaging our environment, destroying people's way of life, and severely damaging the entire region entirely. tourism is the gulf coast region's third largest industry. tourism represents 46% of the region's economy. tourism employs over 1 million people. many studies indicate that this oil spill has put 300,000 jobs at risk, with an 15% of the total job base in the region.

the saddest part of the story is that some things are impacted today were still recovering from the aftermath of hurricane katrina which occurred over five years ago. now that bp has created a $20 billion claim scheme to compensate victims to have been in a it -- impacted by the oil spill, the purpose of this hearing is to make sure that the travel and tourism industry will not be left behind. that they will be included. one might ask why. well, i'm glad you asked. because of the difficulty of that industry, the complexity of the methodology that needs to be employed to determine the level

of damages, and fair compensation, and because of tourism's vast economic impact on the entire gulf coast region. furthermore, we have learned from the massive media coverage of the oil spill and by various studies done by the tourism industry itself that it is losing because travelers were seeing that it is not safe to travel to the gulf coast region of the united states. we have also heard the concerns of the industry about the claims process. it's time frame for compensation and eligibility. we need to consider what needs to be done to bring back this

interstate to the place it was before the oil spill. these are difficult issues that we have to examine here today. it may require more than one hearing. i want to thank all of the witnesses who will appear before the subcommittee. that concerns about the tourism industry and how will be compensated and revitalized. i hope our discussion today is fruitful and successful. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. i recognize the ranking member for two minutes. >> that is fine. mr. chairman, thank you, and i want to welcome the witnesses today. we appreciate mr. feinberg being here as well as representatives of