the kids, you know, pay for the housing, pay for the transportation costs, it means that when we let them keep more of their hard-earned money, we actually improve the economy nationally. and that's what we need to do. you know, when i travel to southwest washington and over the last few months i've had the opportunity to talk with many, many individuals, businesses, families, and there's really a common theme. let us succeed. . i believe in having things manufactured here. quit relying on other countries to produce things. you know what has to happen? we have to create an environment that makes it easier for people to do business here in america. let me give you a few names, tom cook owns taco bell and another of a flower shop, what do these

folks do? they are creating jobs in our communities. but they are all facing government-initiated problems, whether it's higher gas prices because of this administration's refusal to explore for american energy here in the united states, whether it's a regulatory environment like the health care bill. it's the number one issues that i hear about from small business owners, they are unsure what shoe is going to drop next when it comes to the health care bill. we need to make it easier for them to survive. this house passed over four solutions for gas prices. we heard from small business owners and employers and we responded. we have now passed no less than four bills that allow americans to explore for american energy using american workers here in america.

four bills. we call on this senate to step up and pass the bills so we can create jobs and the businesses can compete with businesses, not just in the united states, but globally. you know, talk about regulations, i think about tiedwater barge located on the columbia river, which is the fourth largest and right in my back yard. the operators ks they move freight up and down the columbia river and boy, every time i have the opportunity to talk to either the employees or employer there, they ask me what is going to happen next, what regulation are you going to send our way that's going to make it more difficult for us to compete. they offer a tremendous health care plan, vision, dental and you name it and i got a chance to meet with the employees. i had a lady, sweet lady come to

me, middle-aged, worked for the company for a while, came to me in tears, because she was so afraid of the cuts to medicare that the obama administration was putting forward, over $500 billion, right? she knew what that meapt for her mother and mother's health care. i have the employee saying this is going to impact us individually and i have the owner saying this health care bill is going to cost my employees this tremendous health care plan and going to jeopardize it. why are we making it harder for them to operate. we should make it easier. we are going to hold this administration or anybody -- it's not a republican or democrat issue. if you work in the federal government and making it harder for businesses to survive, we have our eye on you and we are going to work policies off this

floor like the american energy bills i mentioned earlier and we have put in place and fighting to put in place, replacement bill for the disastrous health care bill that was passed last year. purchasing insurance across state lines, and would allow individuals to purchase health insurance, you get on your computer, just like they do for auto insurance, like the lizard or cave man, get on your computer and choose a health care plan from any state in the union and pick one that best meet your needs. that will drive costs down immediately and won't grow government and these are commonsense solutions and will grow jobs in america and empower families and individuals and business owners, not the government. it's the right solution.

and i join my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us. and i yield back. mrs. roby: again, you make great points and what we all know as we travel around our districts and it's that very uncertainty associated with obamacare that is preventing job creators to create jobs. they are sitting around the table in the break room and saying, how do we plan for 2014, when we don't know how this is going to affect us. all of the regulations that have yet to be written. and right before we have this hour to share together and share with america, we show -- see pictures of a tombstone. we have a plan. they don't have a plan. their plan is the status quo. that's their plan. our plan sustains medicare for this generation and future

generations. i now yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i have to agree with everything you said but i have to disagree on one point. with regard to medicare, the president does have a plan and with that plan, -- i talk to seniors all over my district and one of the things that makes our seniors so angry is that over the course of their lifetime, the money that they have put in their social security accounts, it's been robbed and been taken out and spent for other things. and what the president does in obamacare, he takes half a trillion dollars out of medicare and uses it to spend for obamacare. everyone agrees that we have to fix medicare. bill clinton agrees there is a problem, how do we fix it? the president said, you know

what? i'm going to have a board that is going to look atlanta prices that we pay our health care providers and reduce those reimbursements, reimbursements that are incredibly low. what does that mean? it's going to access the care for our seniors. that is unacceptable. we have a plan in place that is going to save medicare and protect medicare and we are going to continue this great program for future generations. let's not be mistaken. the president has a plan that is going to kill medicare and provide a lack of service to our seniors. i do want to move from that to jobs, because that's what is on everyone's mind. mr. duffy: people are concerned about jobs. there is a lack of opportunity and lack of prosperity. i want to review what the democrats did, which is they

talked to folks who will come up with and tract theories and talk to university professors and came up with an $800 billion stimulus bill. 800 billion of government spending. they said it will lead to economic growth, prosperity, wealth and sustainable jobs. we know that government spending doesn't lead to sustainable jobs. it doesn't work. and that's why when they promised we would have unemployment of % and we would create millions of jobs, the alternative happened, we lost millions of jobs and had unemployment reach almost 10%. what we have done is not talk to the professors who sit in the classrooms. i have talked to job creators, people who are putting people in my community back to work. and why aren't they creating

jobs? they talk about uncertainty in the marketplace. what does that mean? they talk about a $14.3 trillion debt, the fact that we are going to borrow $1.5 trillion this year alone and borough in the next 10 years and as the gentleman from illinois said we are cascading towards a cliff and there is a danger, pump the brakes, we are about to go over. that's what we are going to do. our job creators are saying, with this massive debt, it creates uncertainty, because we don't know what interest rates are going to be in the very near future. we are concerned about inflation because government is printing our money to purchase our debt. they are concerned about punishing tax increases. they are concerned about health care costs, obamacare, and as

the gentlelady from alabama said, they are concerned about regulation. in my district, we have a great forest products industry, we make paper and this is going to kill jobs in my district and send them to china. all these things have come together to create uncertainty, which means that our job creators aren't re-invest ing and not drawing and not innovating. it hurts the families in our community, because they have the lack of opportunity for jobs. i want to point to a chart that we have here, when we have recession, this is what is called similar met try, if you have a u-shaped decline in this economy, you will have a u-shaped recovery and you will see that in that chart.

what has happened differently in this recession, we had a v-shaped decline, the recovery has picked up a little bit and it's flatlined. why? because of the uncertainty that has been created coming from washington from our democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this administration. it's causing a lack of willingness for our job creators to re-invest. i want to bring up one last point. i hear how our friends want to increase taxes on our job creators and everyone says we will not tax the job creator. if those who say we should raise taxes and are concerned about jobs going overseas, it is a pretty simple example that i use. you have wal-mart and target and k-mart, they compete against one another, right?

and k-mart isn't doing so well. they are laying people off and closing stores. if my friends on the other side of the aisle, democrats, if they advised k-mart, they would say you have to keep these people employed, you need more revenue. to bring in more revenue, all you have to do is raise your prices, if you raise your prices, you'll bring in more revenue. that won't happen. if you raise prices, you will drive consumers to wal-mart and target. you are going to send more of of our jobs to india, china, mexico, vietnam and outsource the jobs because you are raising the costs. let's make sure america is a competitive place, and create jobs and put our hard-working families back to work. and with that, i yield back. mrs. roby: thank you so much.

and i appreciate your comments. and i do want to point out, we have a colleague from virginia, representative griffith that introduced legislation about deregulating the e.p.a. to achieve standards for stroil boilers processed here and for that, we are very grateful for his leadership. now i would like to yield time to the gentleman from colorado. >> i thank the gentlelady for the special order. mr. gardner: i want -- something that is startling to me tonight, when the gentlelady from washington made this statement, speaking to her constituents, speaking to businesses around her district as she mentioned that one of them said, let us

succeed. i was taken aback when someone would come to her and say, all we want the government to do and all we want our policy makers to do, all we want in our regulations is to let us succeed. isn't it amazing we have transfompled our economy from a time when people could achieve what they wanted to achieve by working hard, sacrificing and taking risk and they are concerned where their government is in a place where their government won't let them succeed. that is at the very heart of what every single one of us have talked about tonight and what we will continue to talk about over the next month and years to come, how do we make sure that the policies that we put in place in this country aren't government-driven decisions that dictate what we are going to do

in people's businesses and lives but get government out of the way so we can let our businesses, our families and america's working families, let them succeed. yesterday, a report was issued by the congressional budget office and i don't know how many people saw or took the time to listen or see what the congressional budget office report had to say but we have a $1.6 trillion deficit in this country, that we have a $14 trillion debt. all of this at the same time that our unemployment levels, unemployment levels have creeped back up over 9%, unseptemberbly high. we were sent here in november because we believe that we have more important work to do than simply spending money that we don't have, in passing regulations that kill jobs, the

work we were sent to do here in november was to get our economy back on track. the report indicates that the situation of our economy is actually worse than many of us have been led to believe. our national debt will grow to be larger than the entire u.s. economy this year. . we owe more than the entire country produces in a year. that will happen at the end of this year. if this isn't a wakeup call of what's happen unwilling our economy and spending, i don't know what will be. we cannot afford to wait and delay, we've got to solve this problem now. i want to read a quote from the congressional budget office report. the soon that are long-term changes to spending and revenues are agreed on and the sooner they are carried out once the economic weakness ends, the smaller will be the damage to the economy from the growing federal debt. the report didn't say we can

avoid the daniel, the report didn't say there won't be any damage. but the report said, the smaller will be the damage. $14 trillion debt, $1.6 trillion deficits. that is damaging our economy, it's damaging our country and it's damaging our opportunity to create jobs and long-term economic stability. it is a clear call to action from the congressional budget office. we've got to be bulldogs around this chamber when it comes to reducing our spending. to make sure that we are standing up to the regulaters who want to put people out of business simply because they're sitting behind a desk and think they can. tom block is a constituent of mine who came to me two years ago and said, i'm worried that i'll lose my business. because of overregulation. and you know what he saw over

the course of the last two years? he saw the people that he did business with, the people that he partnered with, leave the state of colorado because of overregulation. last saturday i had the opportunity to tour hackston, colorado, akron, colorado, in the eastern plains to talk to farmers, wheat grorse, cattlemen, ag businessmen, all who came to me with a similar theme. what is happening to them with regulation, overregulation and their concern that they won't have the opportunity to pass on their legacy to future generations because of a government that's decided it knows best and knows more than them. i want to talk a little bit about what the gentlelady said from alabama when she was referring to the tomb stone we saw shown earlier -- tombstone we saw shown earlier by the minority that said, ending medicare on the tombstone. today in committee we had an opportunity to vote on an amendment that said, we will

oppose and vote against any amendment, any bill, any legislation that would end medicare and you know what the colleagues on the democrat side of the aisle did? they voted present. they voted present, refusing to stand up for medicare because they know when we ask what their plan is, they don't have one. when we ask them where the jobs are, they don't know. when we ask them for leadership, they run and hide. and why? because they're voting present when it comes to saving medicare. i thank the gentlelady for the time tonight. mrs. roby: thank you so much and now i would like to yield to the gentleman from new york. >> i thank the gentlelady from alabama for yielding time. and i thank my colleagues for coming to the floor of the house tonight to stand with us, as we have a discussion with the american people. an honest and open discussion. that's what we were called to do in november of this past year

with the great election that brought this majority to this chamber. because we were sick and tired of the smoke and mirrors and the gamemanship and the political rhetoric of yesterday. we are here today to lead. we are here today to talk in an honest and open fashion about not talking points generated from a political party, but a philosophy that will bring america back to being the land of opportunity, not only for us but for our kids and for our grandchildren. mr. reed: you know, i love hearing the stories that my colleagues are offering about constituents from their home district, about people who are suffering and looking for jobs, they're in the ranks of the unemployed. but i also think of the people that are presently in a job, people like brad fister and his

wife tammy who are raising a beautiful young girl by the name of alissa and they sit in their living rooms watching their daughter play with the family toys, the slinky, you know, all the things that we think of as the american dream, the thimmings that we enjoy with our families -- the things that we enjoy with our families and what he worries about is will very a job, not just tomorrow, but will he have a job six months from now, will he have a job a year from now? that uncertainty, that fear is something that the men and women and children of america should not have to live in. because we are the strongest nation on the face of the earth. we are the land of opportunity. so when you hear us talking here tonight, it is not about political posturing, it is about articulating a philosophy to america that we, each of us,

hold dear. and the police toify can really be -- philosophy can really be summed up to four points. you hear us talk a lot about the national debt. and i've been asked at town hall meetings on a regular basis, why is that such a fundamental issue? why other than the threat that it presents to us as a nation because everyone gets that, why is it so important that we get the national debt under control? and my response has always been that if you're going to create the confidence in the american market, that the people that are going to expend billions of dollars to create that new manufacturing base -- manufacturing base in america, they've got to have the confidence that the american market, that the fiscal house of the united states government is in order so that they can make that investment in a safe and secure market. so that's issue number one. not only do we have to balance the books and get our fiscal

house in order, we have to have an honest conversation about removing the excessive regulations that are being promulgated out of washington, d.c., and in our state capitols throughout the entire nation. and when we talk about that, what we are talking about is not going in and repealing all regulation, it's about having common sense, reasonable, regulatory oversight, but not going to the point that we're seeing out of washington, d.c., that is letting go of common sense and regulating, in my opinion, for the sake of just regulating. that is not good government. we also believe that our tax code in america needs to be reformed. we have talked greatly about it, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also to create a marketplace in america that's going to be competitive worldwide, because we are in the world economy. that is the reality of our world

and we need to recognize it and we need to give our private sector those tools or that environment that allows us to compete on the world economic stage. and the fourth point that i think many of my colleagues here tonight hold near and dear as i do is that we have to adopt and commit our nation to a comprehensive, domestic oriented energy plan. why is that important? not only because of the national security interests that so many people can inherently latch onto , you know, we are importing about nine million barrels of oil a day. coming from countries and sources that are publicly adverse and sworn enemies to the united states of america. so it just doesn't make sense. but a bigger issue, a second issue that needs to be

articulated on the energy plan is that if we can grow a domestic, stable source of energy here in america we will create a marketplace in america that can rely on long-term, stable, low cost sources of energy. i can tell you as a small developer myself, when i looked at putting a project together there were always three things i looked at in the private sector. i said, what are the taxes, what are the insurance costs and what are the utility costs? and as a mayor of a small city, the city of my hometown in new york, when i met with developers who were looking to locate into our community, utility costs was always in that top three of concern. so if we can adopt and commit ourselves to a domestic oriented, comprehensive energy plan, i am confident we can lower those costs of the american market, can become competitive again. that means bringing back our

manufactures, that means building things here in america and as my colleagues have articulated over and over again, government is not here to create jobs. that is not what our founding fathers envisioned. what the founding fathers envisioned was a government that preserved and protected the right to have the opportunity to succeed in one's life. not a guarantee to succeed. not one where the government is the one signing the front of the paycheck. but rather the individual is going out and earning that paycheck without interference from the government and from sources from the private sector. so i am so happy to be here with my colleagues this evening and i join you proudly in this fight, in this philosophy of leadership that we have brought to washington, d.c., and will continue this fight and continue the leadership out of this house chamber to stand for america,

for our kids and our grandchildren and make it again the land of opportunity that we have all enjoyed. with that i yield back. mrs. roby: thank you so much to the gentleman from new york. before i call on the gentleman from arkansas, i just want to make a point, a story about a company here in the united states trying to achieve exactly what you were talking about. we know the private sector creates jobs, yet our friends on the other side of the aisle, all they're doing is standing in the way, we continue to lead, to deregulate, recently a startup company named saxton in basin, ohio, developed prototyped a patented an innovative new technology for shipping contains that are could save u.s. manufacturers, retailers and fee, rail and truck carriers millions of dollars annually by reducing the cost of moving and storing empty containers. they raised about $1 million, all private money, to hire five people buy supplies, hire local

welders and build prototypes. the third party cost, attorneys, accountants, filing fees, printing, etc., of compliance with the relevant security regulations to raise $1 million in $30,000 units from private individuals was over $75,000, enough to hire a full-time welder. he has expressed the need to make the regulatory barriers to raising private investor startup money for innovative, entrepreneurial companies much lower while maintaining reasonable protections for private investors and large banking and investment companies. it is easier for an individual to get a credit card with a $30,000 limit or a home equity loan for $30,000 than it is for the same person in this country, the united states of america, to decide to invest $30,000 in a united states startup company like saxton which goes directly

to the point that you're making. again, house republicans continue to lead, but we don't see the same leadership on the other side of the aisle. and now i would like to yield time to the gentleman from arkansas. >> thank you. i thank the gentlelady from alabama. one of the ways that we in the house are focused on creating an environment with a private sector can create jobs is by pushing the president to do something about the pending trade agreements. there are three pending trade agreements. one with panama, one with colombia and one with south korea. and all three of them are just sitting there. sitting there while other countries are developing relationships and increasing exports to these countries. now, in january of last year president obama said, quote, if

america sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the opportunity to create jobs on our shores. mr. griffin: end quote. i couldn't agree more. i couldn't agree more. the president recognized last year that we need to move quickly with regard to these agreements that will increase exports. why? because if we increase exports we increase jobs. some estimates say that if we pass these three trade agreements, that we will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. . it's important we pass them quickly. why? i sat down last week with the --

this past week with the ambassador from colombia. and he was talking about how his country has greatly increased trade with europe. while they're waiting on the administration here in the united states to move the agreement with their country soy that we can increase our exports and do business more efficiently , create jobs in this country. he said, we're waiting, we're waiting for the administration to take action. we keep hearing, it's coming. it's coming. we're working on it. but he knows that those are just words. we need to get these trade deals passed and in place so we can compete. right now, businesses from

europe are visiting south korea and visiting colombia and visiting panama and they're doing business. and the problem that we have, even if we ultimately get these agreements passed, and i certainly hope we will, we will have lost valuable time. it's not like flipping a switch when the agreements are passed, everything is equal. we're competing with europe for the business of panama, korea or -- while we are sitting on the side lines waiting for these deals to be passed, the europeans and others around the world are developing relationships. they're flying to these countries and meeting for lunch and touring their factories,

they are exchanging business cards. they are signing contracts, all while we sit idly by waiting for the president to do something. the president talked about doing something on these deals last year. he recognized that if we don't do something, we're going to lose the ability to compete, but what has he done? nothing. talk is cheap, mr. president. we are waiting on you to move these trade deals, colombia, or south korea and with panama. you want to do something that sends a signal to this country that you are serious about job creation, mr. president, then get those deals passed. get those deals passed. get out of the way of our

businesses and let them compete with europe and other countries around the world so they can create jobs. we're ready in this house. we're ready. we will help you get them passed. just join us, mr. president. thank you for the time. mrs. roby: thank you to the gentleman from arkansas and i yield to the gentleman from indiana. >> a mr. stutzman: first elected to washington and finding out that the situation that we face. this is about our kids' and grap kids' future. that is why you run for office and why you ran to come to washington, to address the challenges that we have here in washington. it's hard to comprehend the budgeting that has been taking

place over the past several years here in washington, d.c., when we are back at home and facing a tough economy and facing a job market that is not that strong. our friends and family, we have people that we know personally that are out of work and are trying to survive in a very fragile economy and yet it seems like we come to washington and we explain the situation back home and it continues to fall on deaf earsu falls on deaf ears on the white house, the senate. and ladies and gentlemen, i believe this is a time for us, this is the greatest opportunity that with will have to change the way washington works. we talk a lot about the debt that we are facing in this country, $14 trillion, we have a debt ceiling that is coming up here before long and almost

maxed out the credit cards and there is no discussion, no real way to deal with the spending habits of washington, d.c., and taxes and debt kills jobs and if we want to get people back to work, we need to tackle both of those and address them in a meaningful way that will produce work for americans. i was in a budget committee meeting today and it's just so surprising to me and it just shows the position of so many washington politicians that they are out of touch with reality and have a $1.5 trillion deficit, they say let's raise taxes. if any taxes go up in this economy, it's going to kill job creation. as my friend from wisconsin was talking earlier about the

comparison between wal-mart and k-mart, he hit the nail on the head, you raise prices, people are going to go someplace else and the solution here in washington is let's raise taxes for the deficits that we have. i want to end briefly here is that if you are making $2,000 a month, but are spending $3,500 a month, you are in a deep hole. we know if you are spending $1,500, that's a recipe for disaster. the federal government is spending $1,500 a month more in comparison to what we are taking in a month. their solution is taxes and their solution is increasing the debt. i believe for us to get jobs back in our economy and job creators who are working, whether it's down at the

mcdonald go's and those who are going to going to be making the big mmp a crmp s and providing a job for a high school kid, that's what people are looking for, confidence in this market. it's good to be with you this evening. i'm thrilled that you are here and spreading the message of what needs to happen here in washington. mrs. roby: as we move into a discussion now, with a little bit of time we have left, i own a business that brings in $100,000 worth of profit but you owe the bank $400,000 and that goes to our household. everyone has tightened their belt but for the federal government. i yield 209 the gentlewoman from washington. ms. herrera beutler: the one you here tonight is the american

people do it best. treasure secretary nightner defended how they make credit available to small business. steak burger in vancouver, and these are small businesses that are hiring high schoolers and kids in college and trying to keep these minimum-wage kids in jobs, it's making it harder for them when the treasury secretary believes that raising taxes is how we meet the spending bid. it's ridiculous. two different beliefs. we believe that americans can grow jobs. it's plain and simple. so thank you. mrs. roby: i yield to the

gentleman from illinois. mr. kinzinger: this is a great example of freshmen who have come here for the purpose of saving our union. and we have seen a great group from different states and different backgrounds. standing here i'm inspired by what i'm seeing here in the future of america and i think we will go some places and we cannot be second best. i don't think people have to say america is going to be second best. we can always stay best. mrs. roby: and forums like this tonight, americans deserve the truth and the strongest truth comes from the mouths of americans who are feeling the pain in their homes and businesses and i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: it is 18% more

expensive to manufacture in america as opposed to other countries and that's outside of wages. that's our tax code and regulations. more expensive to manufacture in america. that is policies right mere in washington that is making it wrong. i had a chance to listen to our colleagues on the democrat side of the aisle go on for big tax breaks for oil companies. but i just got here in january. i'm a freshman and i'm new to this, but i don't recall us passing any bills that have tax breaks for oil companies and they had control of this house for four years. where were their bills to deal with tax breaks for big oil companies? i never saw any. and i hear people -- and job

creation and making us more competitive. rope mrs. roby: this is all about our very energy bills that we have shown consistent leadership just in the six months that we have been in the majority. i go to the gas pumps and i know how much it costs, i'm in the grocery store, i see the rising cost of foods and yet again, today, we see the president dip into our oil reserves which is for emergencies and yet we are using it for politics at a time when this country must become less dependent. i yield to the gentleman from colorado. mr. gardner: what is amazing about the argument, the president res the oil. people are arguing, no, no, no, we don't need more oil bringing

on-line because that won't lower the cost of fuel. more supplies won't reduce the price of fuel. and it will reduce the price of fuel. a very confused argument. mrs. roby: thank you so much. mr. duffy: what does that do to the security of our country? whether it is tornadoes, floods or hurricanes, things happen in the golf, because our energy supply could be at risk and here for political purposes to drive prices down over the summer driving season, the president has tapped into that reserve. i think that is absolutely unacceptable for political purposes and real risks could come up that could cause us to

go back to that reserve. >> they all relate to jobs, whether we are talking about reducing the regulatory burden, revising the tax code, passing trade agreements, working on energy development and becoming more energy dependent or paying down the debt, they relate to job creation where the private sector can create jobs. mrs. roby: thank you all to the freshmen and the distributes you wrept but we are here to work for american jobs and thank you for your time and look forward to doing this again soon. with that, i yield back. mr. speaker, i make a motion to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is aagreed to, accordingly, the house stands

adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.

american troops home to afghanistan. today on capitol hill, he said the risks are manageable and do not jeopardize the mission. that is next on c-span. the rule here from more president obama.

>> he supports the plan to reduce to bubbles in afghanistan. at a mall -- adam got mullen is joined. this is the house armed services committee. >> we brought 10,000 u.s. troops by the end of the year. the remaining 22,000 forces will be here by next summer. my position on the war effort has remained consistent. is ofistan's development vital. this should be based on positions on the ground consistent with the advice of our military leaders. it is not clear to me that the decision was based on either. in 2009, the president said of a comprehensive counter insurgency

situation. they testified that this beginning to bear proved. many members have seen this for themselves. it is now being contested. it is being handed over to the afghan security forces. it is beginning to develop the capabilities to secure their country. these gains are significant. we should start them. i am deeply concerned about the troop withdrawals proposed by president obama. the decision could affect this. potentially, it is the safety of the remaining forces.

this puts at risk a negotiated settlement with reconcilable elements. they believe they can weigh down the departure of u.s. forces and return. today i hope to hear more about the details underpinning the president's plan. it will allow enough time to achieve success and that this drawdown is a military and not a political situation. to further able to cement recent gains. in areas that have been the economy, fabled never witnessed similar progress. with the taliban and stumbling, we need a strategy designed to knock this to the map and not give the industry again.

i wish i would hear him forcefully renew his commitment to winning in afghanistan. whinnied our cheap to remind the american people why this must be borne and to reassure our military service members and their family that their sacrifices are not in vain. this is short on details. it has little to do with a plan to succeed in afghanistan. i look forward to hearing more about how this will advance our shared national security interests. i yield now to our ranking member. >> thank you. i think our witnesses for being here. it is a very difficult set of choices. i think everyone agrees. we want our troops home as soon as possible.

we want the troops to come home as soon as possible. we want to make they do not defend the chaos. we understand this. there are safe havens have become available. there is the challenge. cut the balance that? i think the president has struck a very real balance. this is what we had an president obama tip office. this is nearly twice as many u.s. ships that will be there. it is a relatively modest drawdowns.

the other point is that there is a breast. that will always be the case. it is 10 years from now. there was a real risk. this is not a historical a stable part of the world. what fails to be understood is the risk involved spliff staying too long and not just in terms of the costs that people be year as a country and our men and women serving in uniform. on a daily basis, we hear complaints about our military presence. about civilian deaths. about having 150,000 u.s. troops in your country. they are reliant on 150,000

foreign troops here this has a risk attached. you have to strike a balance. if you were to say tomorrow we are just going to stay here for as long as we feel like a comment that would undermine our national security interest. if i have a concern is that we may be staying there too long. i understand that they have a different balance to strike. i look forward to hearing about how this will play out. there is no question that afghanistan and pakistan are in interco. we have to manage a plan their parents this will further

elaborate on the plans. >> thank you. i want to thank our witnesses for being here today. if this is very timely. i appreciate you making the extraordinary effort to get statements out. he is a team of the joint studies of chaff -- joint chiefs of staff. they have made comments to him. merger is going to coast the the next so many months. he said like i have coasted the the last four months. people probably were not thinking about it.

and what is thank you for your many years of service. we will now listen. >> i think we had him. the morning. thank you for the opportunity. i support the president's decision as to the general. we were given the boys in this project. we offered our views freely and without this. it was hurt.

the commander in chief presides over a comprehensive discussion. i am grateful for this. i can tell you foremost on everyone's mind was preserving our success that they have achieved thus far. we believe that when it was established in december 2009 that it would be this summer could determinen't whether or not it was right. we could see whether focus was appropriate. now we know. we did have it right. the strategy is working. the momentum in the south has been checked. we have made extraordinary progress against the mission we have been assigned. we are in a sign to get responsible. we will withdraw 10,000 american troops by the end of this year.

we could withdraw the remaining 23,000 by the end of next summer. they will be given the flexibility inside these deadlines to determine the pace of this withdrawal inside the country. there is no jumping ship here. quite the contrary. we will have the great bulk of the search forces. and most of the next fighting season. and comfort go -- i am confident it will affect future decisions. let me be candid. no commander ever wants to sacrifice fighting power in the middle of a war. no decision is ever without risk. this is true in a counter insurgency were success is not that she by commissioner superiority but by the wisdom of

our people as they pursue terrorists and engage in the local populace. firepower is manpower. and not intended to discuss the specifics -- i do not intend to discuss the specifics. i support them. i can say the president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risks than i was originally prepared to accept. this is without doubt the safer course. that does that make it the best. only in the and the president can determine and acceptable level of risk. i believe he has done so. we would have run other kinds of risk by keeping more forces in afghanistan longer. we would have made it easier for the karzai administration to increase their dependency on us. we would have denied forces to

further exercise the capability. we would have signaled to the enemy and our partners to strengthen the to warrant a full measure of our presence. they do not. we would have continued to limit our own freedom of action. the decisions allow us to do this more quickly. it reduces the cost of deploying those forces. in sum, we have urged this. this is not without its rewards. we will take this and we will reap them. the war in afghanistan will enter a new phase. we will continue to fight it. we will need the assistance. huge challenges remain. it this is the beginning and not the end of our effort to wind

down this war. under in uniform is anis an illusion that there are no challenges as we continue to accomplish the mission there. we know the progress that we have made can still be reversed without our consent leadership, the contributions of our partners and nations, and a more concerted effort by the afghan government to address correction in their ranks and deliver basic goods and services. but the strategy remains the right one. this transition and focus on developing the afghan national security forces was always a part of that strategy. in fact, if you consider the continued growth of the ansf, the taliban could well face more combined force in terms of manpower in 2012 than they did this year, and capable enough if the ansf has strong leadership and continued outside support.

going forward, we also know we need to support an afghan political process that includes reconciliation with the taliban who break with al qaeda, renounce violence, and accept the afghan constitution. and we know we need to continue building a strategic partnership with afghanistan, one based not on military footprint but on mutual friendship. our troop presence will diminish, as it should. but the partnership between our two nations will and must endure. that is ultimately the way we win in afghanistan. not by how much we do but by how much they do for themselves and for their country, not by how much our respective soldiers fight but by how much our states men lead. thank you, mr. chairman, and i stand ready to take your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. florinoy. >> mr. chairman, ranking member smith, distinguished members of the community. thank you for inviting us both here today to update you on

afghanistan. as you all know, in his december 2009 speech at west point, president obama announced a surge of 30,000 u.s. troops with the clear objectives of seizing the initiative from the taliban and reversing the momentum of the campaign on the ground. at that time, the president also specified that the surge would not be open-ended and that he would begin to reduce u.s. surge forces beginning in july 2011. last night, true to his word, president obama announced to the american people that the united states is beginning a deliberate, responsible drawdown of our surge forces in afghanistan. an initial drawdown of 10,000 troops will occur over the course of this year with a further draw down of the remainder of the surge by the end of summer 2012. secretary gates believes that this decision provides our commanders with the right mix

of flexibility, resources, and time to continue building on our significant progress on the ground. even after the recovery of the surge forces totaling about 33,000 troops, we will still have 68,000 s. service members in afghanistan. that is more than twice the number of when president obama took office. clearly this is not a rush to the exits that will jeopardize our security gains. more importantly, at the end of summer 2012 when all of the surge forces are out, there will actually be more afghan and coalition forces in the fight than there are today, that's because by the time we complete our drawdown, we anticipate that the afghan national security forces will have added another 55,000-plus members, not including the afghan local police. the growth in the quantity and the quality of the ansf which

has fielded more than 100,000 additional forces over the past 18 months is one of the critical conditions that is enabling the drawdown of the u.s. surge forces. more broadly, as the admiral said, our strategy in afghanistan is working as designed. the momentum has shifted to the coalition in afghan forces and together we have degraded the taliban's capability and achieved significant security gains, especially in the taliban's heartland in the south. these security gains are enabling key political initiatives to make progress. we've begun a transition process that will ultimately put afghans in the lead for security nationwide by 2014. we are beginning to see reintegration and reconciliation processes gain traction, and we are in discussions with the afghans about a strategic partnership that will signal our enduring commitment to the afghan people

and to regional peace and stability. today, these initiatives promise us a future afghanistan that is stable, peaceful and secure. so i want to emphasize that this announcement in no way marks a change in american policy or strategy in afghanistan. it is wholly consistent with the goals that president obama and our allies agreed to at lisbon, the nato summit at lisbon last year. there we committed to the gradual transfer of security leadership to the afghans by the end of 2014 and to an enduring commitment to a security partnership with afghanistan to ensure that we never again repeat the mistake of simply abandoning that nation to its fate and risking the reestablishment of al qaeda safe havens there. i want to emphasize that although our progress in afghanistan has certainly been substantial and our strategy is on track, there are significant

challenges that remain. in the months ahead, we will be confronted by an enemy that will try to regain the momentum and the territory that it has lost to afghan and coalition forces. however, that enemy will also face an afghan population that is increasingly experiencing the benefits of security and self-governance and those benefits will only become clearer as we begin the transition to full afghan security responsibility in selected areas. those communities will provide us with useful lessons on security and governance as well as the potential model for other parts of the country. finally, let me emphasize how crucial it is for us to maintain the continuing role of our coalition partners in afghanistan. 48 countries with some 47,000 troops along our side. these partner nations have made significant contributions and significant sacrifices. even as we recognize the

progress that we and our partners have made towards our shared goal of destroying terrorist safe havens, we must sustain this partnership to ensure that we ultimately leave behind an afghanistan that will never again serve as a base for terrorist attacks against the united states or our allies. thank you, mr. chairman, mr. smith, and distinguished members of the committee. that concludes my remarks and we look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. there's not a single member of congress who does not want our troops to come home as soon as possible. personally, i believe the objective of transitioning to an afghan lead on security within three years is both a desirable and an achievable objective. the last visit i made compared to the one before i saw significant progress, areas we weren't able to go into before

we were able to go and walk down the streets in marja without body armor and opened a school while we were there. i think we've made significant gains. this will enable, as we transition, it will enable our forces to come home. however, i'm concerned that the drawdown plan announced by the president last night will significantly undermine our ability to responsibly enact this transition. i'm concerned with the gains we've made in the south. we've been holding, as i understand, more of a holding pattern in the north and the east, and the plan was, i thought, to move more of those forces as we solidified the gains in the south to move them to the north and the east, and i'm concerned that this drawdown may not let us do all that we could in that area. admiral mullen, based on your best professional judgment and that of your commanders, how many of the forces to be drawn down will be combat forces?

and i'll ask these and you can answer them. is the president's plan to redeploy all 33,000 surge forces by next summer aggressive? what regional commands will these forces be drawn from? does it put our recent security gains at risk, and does it risk the security and safety of our remaining forces? >> let me talk about broadly the approach, clearly as you've said, chairman, we've made significant gains over the course of the last 18 months, and really since the president made the decision to put the surge forces in. and particularly in the south. and we're in the hold phase now , and in fact moving into a phase where the afghans have the lead, so that was where we were with respect to literally

the most recent discussions and meetings with respect to what to do next, and we understand that. the south consciously has been the main effort, and it is that focus that has allowed us to achieve the gains we have, not insignificant when we debated this in 2009, was the very small chance that everybody -- an awful lot of people gave us in terms of building the afghan national security forces, because of the illiteracy challenge, because we didn't have a training infrastructure, because we didn't have noncommissioned officer leaders, etc. the extraordinary progress that has been made with respect to setting up that infrastructure and fielding forces, ms. flournoy said 120,000 forces, i

think, that's been trained and fielded. some 35,000 are in training literally this week. by the end of next year, we will have afghan units that are manned at the n.c.o. level to the 85% level across the board. extraordinary changes with respect to that. when we talk about whether gains are reversible and fragile, these gains can only be made irreversible by the afghan national security forces and the afghan people. in the end. so that is where this is headed and we've made great progress with respect to that. the secondary effort was the east. and i would not describe it over the course of the last year as a holding action as all. in fact, what dave petraeus and others have done out there is reconfigure forces to deal with the challenges of that very rugged territory, and in fact it is not to take a lot -- the

plan is not to take a lot of our forces and put them in the east, but it is as dave petraeus says, it provides the jet stream between the safe havens in pakistan for the ikani network in particular and getting to kabul. . and roughly 20% of the afghan population has been secured, afghans are in the lead, and obviously you want to keep it that way with respect to the capital of that country. so what general petraeus has done over the course of the last year is reconfigure those forces, look at an adjustment in literally strategy on the ground, if you will, to layer the forces in a way so that that jet stream is really cut off. and it has made much more difficult on the enemy. and there are layered forces from the border right through to kabul which are now doing that. i'm actually more confident in

what we have with respect to the east than we had a year ago, because i think we understand it. that doesn't mean it's not hugely challenging, it clearly is. but there was never an intent to do exactly in the east what we've done in the south with respect to our forces. and i think that all lies within this overall strategic approach. all of us knew going into this that the surge forces were going to come out next year at some point in time, so the discussion of exactly when is obviously relevant, but in terms of numbers of months and getting through the fighting season, the end of september is almost all the the way through the fighting season. there will be those who argue october is a tough month. it is. but it's winding down in october. so what we have is the vast majority of our forces for the next two fighting seasons, not unlike what i said in 2009, we put 10,000 marines in hell mond

-- in hellman in 2009. and my position is it if we didn't have a handle on what was going on in 18-24 months based on what we were doing from a strategy standpoint as well as what is happening on the ground, then we probably have to change our strategy. i believe these decisions and our strategy gives us time to understand how good afghan security forces are going to be, how well the government actually stands up, how does president car subsidize get -- president car subsidize -- president karzai get at corruption and how do we deal with the risks associated with the safe havens and is there political space this guys -- this buys where you can start reconciliation and move it in its beginning stages to continue reintegration and we have a couple thousand former afghan taliban -- or former taliban who have -- are now being reintegrated. so in essence, in ways, from my perspective, we're talking about the margins here after a

lot of progress, a good strategy, and continued focus in that direction. i think i would be remiss if i said publicly where these forces are going to come from. because i'm not anxious to give up a -- anything to the enemy in that regard. i'd be happy to go through that with you. but most importantly, i think where the forces come from next year will depend on what happens this year, and that will be p conditions based, inside obviously the dead line set, and that general petraeus and general rodriguez and obviously their release will make these determinations given the mission that they've been given to carry out and obviously the direction from the president. >> thank you. would you term the redeployment for this summer aggressive? >> actually, not -- the words,

as you know, we all have to choose our words very carefully. used "significant" earlier. i think it's well within reason for us to be able to do this. as i said in my opening statement, it was more aggressive and it has more risks than i was originally prepared to -- than i recommended. that said in totally -- in totality, it's within the ability to sustain the mission, focus on the objectives, and execute. >> i didn't mean, when i asked where the forces would be withdrawn to pinpoint p locations, i was referring to -- and i'm glad that you answered that the way you did, but what i was talking about, will they be coming from the fighting forces? >> combat forces is a term

that's been broadened dramatically in these wars. i've been asked as recently as a couple days ago but will they be the enablers? enablers are every bit the combat force anybody else is in the classic sense. so -- and so in ways are support forces because the threat is a 360-degree threat oftentimes. so i can't actually tell you, chairman, where they're going to come from. i think clearly, a commander on the ground is going to keep as much fighting power, whatever that means, given the situation, as he possibly can for as long as he can, and i'm sure that general petraeus and, if confirmed, general allen, will proceed in that direction. but i just don't have the specifics yet. >> thank you very much. mr. smith? >> thank you, mr. chairman. you had mentioned in your remarks the number of afghan security forces that have been trained in the course of the

last 18 months now since the surge began. i've heard the statistic 100,000 in the afghan army. i know we've also made significant improvements in the police force. one of the logical things that occurs to us, if we have that many more afghan troops available, that much more afghan security, how does that figure in and help us with this drawdown. how capable are they, how reliable are they, how can we move them in and take over some of the responsibilities? if we're adding over a hundred,000 afghan troops, i don't know the figure on the police force and the next since months our plan is to withdraw thousands of u.s. forces and seems we're in good shape. the other piece of that, the other nato forces are going to be keeping roughly the same amount for the rest of this year, is my understanding. can you confirm that and then comment on how the afghan forces add into the mix? >> let me go to the second question first. i mean, we were in both consultation and contact with our nato allies over time, and

they were obviously focused very much on what the united states was going to do and any decisions that they were going to make were clearly going to be informed by this decision that the president has made. that said with, and i think it's worthy of focusing on, part of what the president focused on last night was the lisbon summit, the whole issue of transition, the number of countries, heads of states and countries who are committed to this transition in 2014 which we think is about right. that's certainly the intent, and everything coming into this as far as i know, mr. smith, i mean, the allies were very much with us. they've got specific decisions they've got to make and i don't know what those are. certainly i think as secretary flournoy pointed out, it's important for them to stay in this, not lost on me over the totality of this is 48 countries have committed combat

forces here over time which is a huge statement specifically in and of itself. with respect to the ansf, i think the number, and i can get it if it's wrong, for the army and the police is about 128,000, between the two. and in fact, you know, two years ago it was illiteracy. it was essentially no training infrastructure. it was -- there was nothing set up except you recruited somebody on a friday and monday they were on the street in a unit that wasn't well led, didn't have mid, senior leadership, senior or mid-grade leadership and hadn't had any training. we've now set up what we call 12 branch schools that have been set up. so this 35,000 i mentioned, and the number has been between 25,000 and 35,000 in training for months, so it was a matter of setting up the infrastructure. many countries contributing to

the -- to trainers, and we're about where we need to be with respect to trainers from all these countries. so there's now a system of training which produced a much more capable individual and what we see as a much more capable fighting force in the field. they're leading in some cases now. we are partnering with them throughout afghanistan and over the course of the next year, that will increase exponentially. i'm not naive to think they've got some challenges, they haven't done this before. we don't expect it to be magical. but in terms of the progress we've made over the course of the last 18 months or so, it really has been enormous, and we expect to continue on that pace. and actually have it pick up, they'll get better and be more and more in the lead. >> the improvement and training, of course, in the last 18 months i don't think can be overstated. as you said, it's one thing to say we'll pick someone up and turn them into a soldier and send them out the door.

it's another thing to have a trained force. the surge wasn't just in our troops but in the totality of the effort, improving the training and also improving the governance. last time i was there a few months back, i've never seen so much activity on state department, agriculture, justice department. we had usaid, a comprehensive effort to improve the governance. and i'll conclude by saying if we put 128,000 more afghan security forces over the course of the last 18 months, i don't think it's fair to say that drawing down 10,000 u.s. troops this year and even another 23,000 next year significantly reduces our effort. i think clearly we have resourced this effort appropriately and we're making progress, and certainly appreciate your leadership on that. it was a very tough fight but the improvement that all of us have seen over the course of the last 18 months is truly remarkable and to be commended. and with that i yield back. >> thank you. mr. bartlett. >> thank you very much. thank you for your service and

your testimony. 4 1/2 years ago i led a co-dell -- a codel to china to talk about energy. i believe mr. larson was on that codel with me and were stunned when the chinese began their discussion of energy talking about post oil. oil is finite, of course it will be a post oil world. with our focus of the next election which is never more than two years away, the next quarterly report which is always less than three months away, i have heard none of our leadership mention that there will be a post oil world. this is a dominant factor in the chinese planning, so clearly people in that part of the world have a different perspective of time and agenda than we do. i am the afghan taliban. i'm not constrained in my

thinking by the next election which is less than two years away or the next quarterly report. what may seem to those americans as a very long time, three years, to me in my planning, it's little more than a blink of an eye. in just three years, they're going to be out of there. for the next three years, i'm going to continue the fight as a diversion but what i'm really going to be doing is recruiting and reconstituting so that i'm going to be ready when they're gone. i know they're working very hard to improve the security forces and the police, they're trying to make the mayor of kabul look like the president of afghanistan. but these gains are all very fragile and reversible. and with the forces that i'm going to hold in reserve from this fight, they'll be easily reversed. when they're gone. do you think that we have the

ability -- you know, what one sees depends upon where one sits. do you think that we have the ability to see the world through the prism of the taliban? >> we see that world a lot more clearly than we used to, mr. bartlett, as i'm sure you can appreciate because of the fights and because of the sacrifices. we also see that world through the afghan people's eyes because we're in so many villages, subdistricts, and districts with them. and i just disagree that the gains are going to be easily reversed. in fact, i see a stream of intelligence routinely of the taliban in significant disarray, at the leadership level, many of whom live in pakistan as well as in the field. >> sir, i was just repeating

what i am told by general petraeus and others, and every testimony read in the congressional record, they sit where you're sitting and they say the gains are fragile and reversible. i was simply repeating that. >> i have said that as well, which you also said that they are easily reversible. i just disagree that that's the case. they only become irreversible if we get the afghan security forces in charge of their own destiny. that's the goal over the course of the next three years. four years ago they virtually had no afghan security forces, certainly no effective forces. that's the challenge. that's the path home. we all know that. and we see that through their eyes as well as look at it through the taliban's eyes. the taliban had a really bad year last year. they're having a really bad year this year. they're going to have another really bad year next year.

it's for them to decide how long they want to just sit on the side. and i certainly understand that. that's less -- as far as i'm concerned, that's more than just a blink in the eye, even in their eyes and they've been fighting this for many years. they are also tired, and i see that routinely. so i guess my -- i come at it from a different position than how you see it. i certainly understand what you're saying, but we have just seen great progress and there's an opportunity here to succeed against the objectives we have, which have been limited and get to a point where afghanistan is in charge of their own destiny and we have a long-term relationship with that country that puts them in a position to be a lot more peaceful and stable than they've been in the last three to four decades. >> thank you.

>> thank you. mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you both for being here this morning. i think the -- at least from my perspective, and this is after having a conversation with former ambassador about the region in general and the challenges that we may face given the decision that the president made, the -- and we were there as part of the trip with the chairman, and one of the anecdotes that stands out in my mind speaks to the -- just the comments you're making but the advances we have made, some people categorize as fragile, but we were told about one of the soldiers that had been trained, was intending on being deployed, but what was

significant about that was that his idea was once he completed his term was to go back to his village and work on the next generation in the context of literacy. we all know that's one of the big challenges we have faced as the rate of illiteracy in the general population. so my question is given the decision that has now been made in terms of starting the drawdown, one of the expectations that we have is that the civilian leadership will set the direction and that the afghani national security forces are going to provide the security. so my question is for both of you, is the civilian leadership

at a point to where they can provide that direction, that oversight, and how are we -- where are we and how are we ensuring that both evolve at the same time because we are also very troubled by the amount of corruption that exists, the control or lack of control that's exercised by the central government, so it seems to me that those are still questions out there that we need to take into account as we do the drawdown. and then the last point is, we're being told that even once this is accomplished, just for the ansf, the security forces, it's going to take somewhere between $6 billion and $8 billion a year to sustain them. the central government does not have that kind of -- at least

at this point, we don't have the expectation that they'll have that kind of income. so where's that money coming from, how much and how long are we on the hook for, either $6 billion or $8 billion or more if you take into account the civilian government as well? >> thank you, congressman. we are certainly investing in developing afghan governance and institutions as well as the ansf. the greatest progress we are seeing so far has really been from the bottom up, starting at the local and district level, moving to the provinces. i think -- i would say that something like 75% now of the district and provencial officials that are in place are now merit-based appointments. these are capable people who are qualified to do the jobs they're doing, and you are seeing a dramatic change at the local level where most afghans

have their most direct experience with their government. so that is the good news. i think when you move to the national level in terms of ministries that can provide basic services and accountable justice system and dealing with corruption and so forth, we still -- this is a work in progress and there are many challenges we still have to work through, but we are working through -- we have partnerships with each of the major afghan ministries, working with them to develop capacity and go after corruption. on your question about ansf sustainability, we share your concern. the president shares your concern. we are currently working with the afghans to scrub our long-term model for the ansf to better understand as the insurgency comes down, what will the needs of that force really be, how can we bring down the costs, do things in a way that gets us into a more sustainable range in terms of

what the afghans together, along with the international community, can support over time. >> thank you. mr. thornberry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, you said in your statement that there is the commanders have flexibility inside the deadlines, which tells me there is no flexibility to extend the deadlines, and you also said in your statement that the. 's -- the president's was more aggressive and encouraged more risk than i was originally prepared to accept. interesting choice of words, "prepared to accept" to mean. but that tells me your best military advice was something other than less aggressive withdrawals than what the president announced. so i guess the first question that comes to my mind, is there a military reason to have a mandated withdrawal in september rather than november

or december? [inaudible] [inaudible audio] [poor audio] [poor audio] [inaudible]

>> i would re-emphasize the commander on the ground is specific enough to have all the flexibility to move the forces where and when he wants to -- [inaudible] >> as you referenced, there are other people who are concerned about the military effects of this. as you know, there is speculation politics play a role in this timetable. i'm trying to focus on the military aspects and i'm looking at today's "new york times" where michael hanlan talks about if the troops have to be out in september, they'll spend most of the summer on the downsizing effort rather than arguably where they should be spending most of their time and that is in the fighting season. and it also quotes general barno who was the ground commander there in afghanistan and is now affiliated with the center for new american security, saying that the 10,000 by december is more than the military wanted but doable.

but putting a september 2012 expiration tag on the rest of the surge raises real concerns. that's the middle of the fighting season. [inaudible] >> i know barno who commanded years ago, and the focus protected -- [inaudible] and how we recommended and integrated that -- [inaudible] certainly we were focused on the military -- [inaudible] at the end it increases the risk but not stangsly from my point of view. and the endless view that we'll be focused on logistics is -- [inaudible]

we have to meet a deadline. [inaudible] >> let me ask you one other thing. some of my colleagues and i have just recently been there, focused on the village stability operations. looks like one of the great successes that is spreading, but the key determinate is manpower. we're augmenting special force with conventional forces now, plans to expand them to a bunch more villages, but if the people aren't there, obviously that cannot happen. so does this decision put at risk what seems to be one of the most promising things going on in afghanistan to allow them to stand up and provide for their own security? >> i agree. if the afghan local police and -- [inaudible] have been enormously successful

and stood out. [inaudible] [poor audio] [audio difficulties] >> thank you, ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you both for being before us. i have a line of questioning from three different aspects, because i think all three of these are very important for us to be able to leave afghanistan and not have to return. and as you probably already know, i've been one of those people who have been saying let's get out of this because i can't seem to get -- and you've been before us many times, and so has secretary gates and others. i haven't seemed to really get from any of you or from mr. general petraeus or the others what's the real end game and what it really looks like.

other than stability and the afghan people able to do this on their own. so i think that's dependent on three things, education of the population because we know that it's very undereducated. secondly, the leadership of that country, and third, a strong afghan army police force, whatever you want to call it. so my first question is, when did we start training the afghan -- what year? i can't recall now, did we start training the afghan army and police? secondly, how many have gone through our training or nato's training or our allies' training program at this point? >> i mean, i can speak to that, and certainly secretary flournoy as well. the exact year would be hard to pin down, but there's been a

training effort almost as long as we've been there. my own personal experience is it was well underway, although underresourced in 2006, 2007, so it's been a number of years. >> and how many would you say we have trained, who have gone through the training program that we have had or our allies have had in total during this time? >> about 300,000. 302,000, 304,000. >> currently, according to the information that you gave that we have in front of us, we have 305,000 total target and strength for this year of the ansf? >> correct. >> so there's been -- so we've trained 300,000 and still have 300,000 so nobody's gone away like in iraq where they walked away with arms, they walked away, they didn't come to the fight, they went back to their villages, you're saying we have 100% retention, admiral? >> no, no.

i'm saying certainly we've had retention problems -- >> i've asked you how many have we trained during the total time. >> i couldn't -- i'd have to go. >> i'd like to get that number when you get a chance. ok. my second question comes to the whole issue of a corrupt government. and i start from the standpoint that the first time i met president karzai, told him -- i was reading a "newsweek" article that called him the mayor of kabul. that's about it. in my last visit there, his own parliamentarians said a type of election where he won a second term should never happen again in that country. somewhere of his own party. so they don't even believe that was a good election. so my question to you is, what are we doing about leadership

there. what have we done to try to cultivate leadership? who are we identifying? or are we just leaving it up to these corrupt people to take advantage of their own country as they currently are doing? >> i would just say what i mentioned before, we have worked bottom up to systematically work with the afghans to ensure first at the district level where afghans experience government most directly and then at the provencial level and then at the national level that we replace corrupt and incompetent leadership, or that the afghans replace them. i think we are 75% of the way there at the district at provencial level. i think you are starting to see president karzai who is in our effort -- >> corrupt. but go on.

>> who makes the need to fight corruption to be able to gain and sustain legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the people. and that one of the things he has begun to do with our support and encouragement is start to make those replacements. so, you know, for example, dismissing a number of officers from the ansf who he found to be corrupt. a lot of the work we're doing on the police, again, historically one of the most corrupt institutions in the country, the revetting, retraining, refielding of those units with a totally different philosophy about what their job is in terms of serving the communities that they protect. those are all concrete efforts towards dealing with the corruption problem. that said, we certainly have a long way to go and we are pressing our afghan partners every day on this issue. >> thank you. and thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. i just would like to add to the record, i think when all is

said and done about this effort of ours, we'll find that a corrupt government is what really brought our efforts to not there. thank you. >> thank you. mr. forbes? >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, i'd like to pick up on a line of questioning mr. thornberry began with your statement you made both in writing and orally, where you said what i can tell you is the president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risks than i am presently prepared to accept. risk to whom? >> risk to the overall mission. the strategy. >> risk to the troops? >> certainly. i think it's increased risk across the board. >> the other thing -- >> but, mr. forbes, it's manageable risk and i know where we stand. >> but admiral, i'm taking your words it's more risk. and let me ask you this question. i notice from your website that you state you're the principal military advisor to the president, and as such, you present the range of advice and

opinions you've received along with any individual comments from other members of the joint staff. what's your role when you come before us, is it to do the same thing or is it to support the decisions of the administration? >> it is -- i think the website says joint chiefs, not joint staff. >> joint chiefs. >> although -- it is certainly to provide my -- both assessment and advice, if you will, views, based on the questions that i get. >> is it the same role you have to the president to give us the same type of advice? >> no, sir, it's not exactly the same. >> i looked through your testimony as you appeared before both the senate and the house during the administration's time. can you tell us one time that you have in any of your testimony not supported the decision that the administration has made before any -- >> i've worked for two presidents and i've supported those presidents. >> so when we come here, we

know we're going to basically have the support of what decision was made. my question then comes back to this, in may of this year, you said you think we'll have a better picture of where to go in afghanistan towards the end of the year. you then said on may 30, i think it's very difficult fighting season right now. this is going to be a tough year. and then in june, i think you said we shouldn't let up on the gas too much at least for the next months. and my question to you today is what has changed between that original acceptable risk that was risk to our troops as well as our mission that was not acceptable then and today? have you reassessed your position and were you wrong when you thought it wasn't an acceptable risk, or has there been something that's changed on the ground, something that's changed militarily that makes that a more acceptable risk today?

>> what i have said for many months is this is going to be -- if i could back up to what i said earlier, a very difficult year on the taliban last year. it is going to be and continues to be a very difficult year with respect to the taliban's goals this year. and my recommendations and the risks that's out there is very focused on achieving those objectives. and while there's more risk, i don't consider it significant, and i don't consider it in any way, shape or form putting the military in a position where it can't achieve its objectives. >> is there -- were there any of the joint chiefs or any of the commanders on the ground that recommended this particular action that the president is taking? >> again, i'm not going to talk about individual recommendations. >> you know, and i will close

with this. it just astounds me when we have don't ask, don't tell, you're willing to come before the committee unsolicit and say i'm willing to state any personal opinion and this is what i think it should be. but yet when we're talking about potential risen to the troops, this committee has to make, which is our number one concern, that you're not willing to say what those individual commanders are willing to say or your personal recommendations. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. andrews? >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral mullen, it is an honor to be in the process with someone whose integrity is as unimpeachable as yours, both in the quality of your advice and strength of your character. we thank you for p it. and madam secretary, thank you for your terrific contributions here. madam secretary, i think you've succinctly stated our purpose in afghanistan, that we ultimately leave behind an afghanistan that will never again serve as a base for

terrorist attacks of the united states and our allies. i've always thought that al qaeda was the parasite and the taliban was the host in afghanistan. and our military mission essentially has been focused on destroying the parasite and either weakening the host or making the host unwilling to become the host for the parasite. and i note that admiral mullen says we need to support an afghan political process that includes reconciliation with the taliban who break with al qaeda, which i think is a wise and understandable view. so with that framework of what we're trying to accomplish, it's my understanding that when the administration took office, madam secretary, we had about 34,000 troops in afghanistan. the surge built that up to 98,000. and when the president's

withdrawal plan is completed, we'll be at 68,000. is that correct? >> that is correct. and at present, there are 47,000 troops from allied countries that are in country. what do we know about the plans of the allies to bra those -- to withdraw those 47,000, how many and when? >> i think in the discussions we've had, i think we have an in together, out together principle, very strong accepts of resolve now. and i think that as we've talked about bringing down our surge forces, some of the allies are thinking about bringing down their surge contributions, but we should remember -- >> in that context -- i'm sorry. of security for afghanistan, the target number of ansf forces is 305,000. and as of april, we were 286,000. and the public reports indicate

that by about a three to one ratio those units were deemed to be effective as opposed to dependent. let me ask you a question that's not a letor cal -- not a rhetorical question. given the troops we don't expect a precipitous drop in, and expect it to be on par with ours, what will the remission of 68,000 americans be after september 30 of 2012? why are they there? >> i think they are there to continue the implementation of the strategy on the road to successful transition, which will be completed at the end of 2014. we expect that afghans be fully in the lead across the country. we're on a glide slope towards that lisbon goal and this drawdown is totally consistent with that and the strategy and the mission will keep aiming for that goal. >>ed a ma'am secretary, either of you can answer this. in terms that our constituents

would understand and that we would understand, what would these 68,000 troops be doing in the country after september 30 of 2012? what will their mission be? >> first of all, it will be to sustain the transition. but specifically, and this is from my perspective, a rock solid principle from iraq. it is the partnership piece. what we see in iraq today and what we've seen throughout the shift in iraq of our mission to the assist side is the enormity of the impact of partnership. and that's where we are even now focused with the afghan security forces. and you talk about the ratio. and in two or three years from now, it will be much better than it is right now. so that will be, if you will, the -- a significant part of the main effort, but that doesn't mean we won't have forces still involved in combat

to continue the gains, if you will. >> admiral, when the day hopefully comes when the afghan security forces are at their optimal point and can control and defend their own country, what will the appropriate u.s. troop level be then? >> it's indeterminate right now. dramatically reduced, clearly. the model is still iraq. and in that -- then that gets into what's being worked right now in this strategic partnership approach between afghanistan and the united states and what does it mean long term in terms of any kind of u.s. footprint, i just don't have the answer to that. >> thank you very much again for your testimony and your integrity. >> thank you, mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, admiral, madam secretary, thank you for being here today. admiral, i appreciate your testimony bringing up the extraordinary progress by the american military, their service in afghanistan. and i'm just so grateful, too, of your reference to winning in

afghanistan. the american people need to know that progress is being made and we can win. and madam secretary, i appreciate you referencing how important it is that we do win and that we're successful in afghanistan. i wish the american people knew, really, the level of achievement such as the security forces. and you've provided the information today, and i appreciate mr. andrews referencing it, too. and that is at the end of this year, in the last three years, we will have doubled the number of afghan police and army personnel up to 305,000 personnel, trained personnel in general bill calwell has certainly done extraordinary work. i had the privilege of visiting my former national guard unit, the 218th brigade as they were training afghan security forces, and i don't think they get the credit. our military or theirs. for the professionalism that's being created in that country. with that said, i'm very

concerned about conditions on the ground and for each of you, the president did not reference any conditions on the ground that would justify withdrawing 10,000 troops by december, an additional 23,000 next summer. every witness before this committee has previously testified that any withdrawal would be conditions-based. the first question, what specific conditions on the ground justify withdrawing 10,000 troops by december? >> we are literally starting transition in seven districts next month. in this overall transition process, which is agreed to by everybody -- there was the lisbon agreement, certainly nato and other countries who are contributing. so this is the beginning of that very specifically. and the conditions on the ground in those provinces support that transition. that is the approach. the other transition provinces,

if you will, and will in great part be tied to violence levels and tied to the ability of the afghan security forces and we get a lot of credit on the military side for the gains. there have been considerable gains on the diplomatic side. we've surged diplomatically over the course of the last two years, extraordinary civilians, who also made a big difference. so the idea is in the various provinces to our districts, if you will, to transition these as conditions allow. and inside the numbers and the dates that you specifically cited, mr. wilson, any movement, any changes that will be associated with where the troops come from are going to be conditions-based. there's no question about that, that the president has given us that flexibility. >> and certainly looking at level of violence, the establishment of a civil society within those districts, what are the future conditions

that are anticipated the removal of 20,000 additional troops? >> the improvement in the security conditions, the most representative example clearly is in the south in hellmond and kandahar specifically. we've enabled this but have allies fighting in the north and the west and in the north it's turning, it's not turned, i wouldn't say that, but it's turning. it's better than it was a year ago. there were grave predictions about losing the north because of what was going on there. and we talked earlier today about the challenges in the east and there are challenges there, but general petraeus has a strategy that i've seen and believe in in terms of being able to create the kind of conditions where we transition there as well. so we're committed to not transitioning until it's ready, and we're working our way through this with the afghan security forces who have dramatically improved in size and in quality. that doesn't mean we don't have retention problems and

attrition problems, although they are, particularly in the police force, much better and in fact on the attrition side, for the police force, we exceed our objective, meaning attrition is lower than it needs to be to sustain that force. >> as decisions are being made in terms of troop withdrawal, is it being considered the effect on the morale of the taliban and the extremists, are we not giving false hope to them that they may prevail, that we don't have resolve, madam secretary? >> i do not think we're giving them any comfort. if i were a member of the taliban and i'm looking out, where will i be next year, two years more, three years more, i'm going to control less territory, i'm going to have less support from the population, i'm going to face more forces in the field and more of them afghans who will be there for a very long time. i'm going to have less access

to finances. i'm going to have more internal him dissension and defections. any way you slice it things are getting worse, not better. >> we will not abandon our allies. >> absolutely not. >> thank you. mrs. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you both for being here. and elm -- and admiral mullen, i know you'll continue to give your extraordinary attention to the issues next months and i appreciate your leadership and service. we had a hearing yesterday and i think the comment was made that the numbers are probably less important than how our troops are utilized or which troops actually we would be -- would be leaving and certainly which troops would be staying. can you break that down a little bit more in terms of support troops, in terms of combat troops, in terms of training troops? and whether or not that decision has been made?

i think just a follow-up question to that really is when we think about the afghan forces, how are they going to be sustained financially into the future? and how do we envision our help and support to them as we move forward? . .there is a lot of work going on on both sides to figure out what is sustainable and will be needed. including eight view -- a view that they will need more in 2013

and 2014. everyone recognizes that the current level from a financial standpoint is not sustainable. solutions have to be taken with respect to a way forward there. what was the first part? i am sorry. >> the way that the remaining troops -- of course, we are talking 68,000 -- support troops vs combat troops and training? >> were like a commander on the ground, i would be focused on the combat and training troops first, keeping them as long as we possibly could. i do not discount the need for the kind of support troops, if you will. i include the first group, the enablers. george petraeus and general rodriguez will have to continue -- will have to determine the specifics. on the 23,000, i think knowing exactly where they will come from -- it is far too soon to

know that. that will be conditions based. conditions will change between now and when they have to focus on executing that. in the near term, general petraeus and general rodriguez have some expectation. obviously there will be at which all over the course of this year. specifically what that might entail. they have done a lot of that work. i have not seen yet, although they will certainly come in in the near future. >> thank you. i want to pile up on the reconciliation issue. if we look around for success, i think a lot of that is defined by the number of young women that are in school. i have had a chance to visit at those schools in the number of trips we have taken to visit with our troops, but also to engage with women in villages as well as in leadership. those women were here in the

capital last week. what role are we really playing to make sure that it is not just a lot of rhetoric about the fact that they are important to the development of a civil society there? how are we moving forward to be certain that their voices or a meaningful voice in this process? at what point would we consider that the reconciliation is not working or moving forward and what role with that play as we continue to look at troop withdrawal? >> i think secretary clinton and many other members of the administration have consistently raised the issue of female participation in both the reintegration process and also the larger reconciliation process. we have raised that with the afghans. we continue to press the point. i think you see a gradual expansion of women involved in

the peace council, for example. involvement in community-based oversight efforts that are emerging. when we talk about the three criteria -- the key criteria and we talk about respecting the afghan constitution, the key element is respect for minority and women's rights. that has been a key plank in our policy for the get go. it is something we continue to try to translate into concrete improvements with our afghan partners. >> thank you. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you both. admiral mullen, i want to go back to a topic that i think goes to the heart of what we see in the conflict of afghanistan, which is the issue of opium production and the drugs that are fueling and funding the

taliban and other insurgent activities. frequently when we had these hearings, i hold up this chart. it is a congressional research service chart that shows the opium production that has occurred during our time period and historically in afghanistan. in the four years of 2006 through 2009, opium production almost doubled. that is the time we saw all we needed to go in with the surge. there were historical levels of opium production. i use this chart but with president karzai and general petraeus to raise the issue that we need to do more to lower the open production -- the opium production and the narcotics trade. these funds directly to find the taliban. they also go to find the issues

of corruption. general operation -- general petraeus was here last time i held up this chart. he sent me a new bar chart. the new chart shows that in 2010 there was a 48% decrease as a result of our counter narcotics actions. there has been a 341% increase our -- in our nationwide drug seizures in afghanistan. this is clearly the result of the activities of increased focus. with the reduction in troops, my concern is we go back to a time when we may again see a surge in narcotics. what assurances can you give us that with the lower number of troops that we will be able to maintain a counter-narcotics activity? >> we will continue to press on

this issue just showing the charts, you look at the levels over the years and, in many ways, it is a way of life that is not going to go away quickly. there have been considerable improvements. we continue to keep pressure on that. obviously, it comes principally -- principally from helmand. the landscapes and the dynamics are changing in helmand. by no means is it gone. the long-term goal is obviously to produce a better way to provide for one's family than what has been -- than what has happened today. i think it actually happens over the long term based on the security environment and having profitable crops that are able to do that, but i do not think that is going to mean that we are going to dry it out overnight. a critical focus here on the

taliban is where they get their finances from as it is for any terrorist organization. over the years this has varied. i have seen many estimates as to how much money they actually get from it, but it is substantial. we need to continue to focus on that as well. there is a near-term peace here, but there is a long-term peace. from an overall strategy standpoint, might view would be that we would have the conditions in the south, helmand in particular, where they cannot sustain that kind of production long term. >> i yield the rest of my time. >> gracias. a question on regards to conditions-based -- the ultimate reduction in violence and development of civil society -- if in fact violence increases and we are unable to promote a civil society, will the president change his course were is the timeline for which all

more important than conditions? >> i think that is for the president to decide. what i said earlier, mr. wilson, and i go back to mid- 2009 -- might view was that this was not working within 18 to 24 months, we need to reassess our strategy. from the standpoint of the next 18 to 24 months, given the transition -- and it is not just include the military sites. the issues of corruption, the issues of governance, the issues of pakistan -- those are significant, inherent risk in this overall strategy. certainly from my point of view, after a period of time, if it is not working, a reassessment is in order, but that is not for me to decide. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. cooper. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, admiral mullen i

thank you for your service. it is not easy to do your job. the hardest part is the patients you have to demonstrate. i appreciate your forbearance. one of the most important factors you know is the pakistan reaction. i assume that the pakistan situation was taken into account when this decision was made. >> it was. >> what is that reaction? >> do you need the pakistan reaction where pakistan itself? >> pakistan's reaction. >> i actually have not gotten it yet. i spoke to mike pakastani -- my pakastani counterpart yesterday. we agreed to talk in the near future after he is able to sort of absorb it. from the standpoint of help pakistan views the future, they

see a stable, peaceful afghanistan as the goal they too would like to see as a result of this overall strategy. they live there. seeing is believing. over time, exactly how they view this will be determined on how this works, i think. i also think they are clearly going through a very difficult time right now from a strategic standpoint. i and many others believe, including the president, that we have to sustain this relationship as difficult as it is. this is a country that has a significant terrorist problem. it is a country whose economy is very weak. it is a country with nuclear weapons that is in a very dangerous and strategically important part of the world. i think not just the united states, but the regional countries need to continue to focus on this so that stability

is something that is the output of all that we do there, not just instability. the continued downward trend is dangerous for all of us with respect to pakistan, afghanistan, and the region at large. >> it takes a great deal of patience and expertise to deal with folks like that. my constituents do not usually realize that pakistan has more people than russia, for example. >> they are projected to have over to madrid million in the next 20 or 30 years -- 200,000 million in the next 20 or 30 years. it is a country i think we have to continue to engage with and be frank with. at the same time, i think we are paying the price in afghanistan

and pakistan for walking away in 1989. that is a model that runs in my head. 20 years from now to ever is sitting here or sitting in your seat, it is much more dangerous than it is right now. >> increasingly pakistan has itself been the victim of terrorist attacks. they have felt the wrath of the taliban and the other groups. >> they have lost tens of thousands. they have lost specifically over 3000 of their military. they have had tens of thousands were did. they sacrificed greatly for their own country. sometimes that sacrificed gets lost. they have some enormous challenges. they have faced them and will continue to face them. i think we need to help them, not hurt them. >> as you say, they are a

reality we will have to deal with and we might as well face up to that and not push the problem to the side and ignore it. a general wrote a book recently called "the wrong war." he said one of the chief problems is karzai has been unwilling to let us police the mountains and valleys and terminate folks across those treacherous border regions. is he mistaken? is this something we need to demand of president karzai? >> i go back to what general petraeus and general rodriguez did. general petraeus along with general rodriguez and general campbell, who basically ran the campaign in the east for the last year to refocus it, to my writ from the border of pakistan and kabul, and to pull forces out of this very remote

places which none of us thought were strategically significant. this layer approach to ensure that we could protect the capital and deal with the hakani and make it difficult on their network. thank you -- >> thank you. my time has expired. >> admiral, you are here at an interesting time. secretary, you have been back year month after month. i just want to say thank you for your service. i knew we do not see eye to eye, but you are out front and doing what you think is in the best interest of the nation. i have not heard anybody talk about our strategy. i have no idea what the troop numbers are supposed to be. i am not a military planner, but

i know what our troops are capable of. i know that higher numbers are better for a counter insurgency operation. we could make afghanistan at the san diego. it would be a nice place to go fly fishing and sheep punting at. i have not heard any talk of changes in strategy to go along with a change in troop numbers. how come? >> the short answer is the strategy has not changed. >> we are at the global and of the numbers. i do not want to get wrapped up on in the numbers game. >> mcchrystal was talking about troops two or three years ago. it has changed dramatically on the ground since then. clearly it is something we look at all the time. it is interesting in the overall numbers. i spent a lot of time looking at who is there and who is making a difference and who is not.

we have a culture of putting a lot of numbers in. historically we have. we have learned a lot with respect to that. in a meeting yesterday we talked about what we learned with respect to iraq. we have access forces in iraq because we removing them so fast. we take those lessons into account as we look at how we do this. despite the pressure on numbers, that also forced us to not adjust our strategy, but look at how we focus this, prioritize, and still achieve success. you talk about the military. it is an unbelievably innovative, creative, capable military that we have. we talk about more risk. it has not put me anywhere close to getting this done. at some point in time, if it is not working, we will have to adjust the strategy.

the strategy is still is a counterinsurgency focus, properly resources -- we could probably get into a debate about that. if it is not working in a year or two, my recommendation would be that it needs to be reassessed. >> we probably have a different interpretation of counterinsurgency. it could be where you have bill its security operations, which are working very well. those are working. some things are not working. you do not think there is any need -- you're telling me there is no need for looking at the strategy as we drop down into the tens of thousands? >> it goes to how we are going

to handle the east. the east is going to not be held by u.s. forces. it will be denied across the border as well as held by afghan forces. you lose all the gains you have in the south. the intent for the transition is to hold an transition to afghan security forces. that is going to be the challenge. i am not here to say that is a done deal because it is not. but that is the strategy. we see it as executable. no one has said that is not the case. is it going to be hard? you bet it is going to be hard. >> if you go back to the original campaign objectives laid out in the west point speech, reverse the taliban's of momentum, denied them access to population centers, if disrupt

them in areas outside of that, degrade them, build the capacity in selected areas. as we do that -- >> we are doing all that. quite correct. but as we do that, that success enables a shift of the effort more towards the afghans. it allows us to thin out -- we have always anticipated that with success, the strategy would require fewer resources on the coalition side and more of the afghan side. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral and undersecretary, thank you for your service. you have worked long and hard on an extraordinary difficult challenge.

it is much appreciated. i want to just confirm -- i think i heard you say, admiral mullen, a moment ago that the mission remains a counterinsurgency mission. is that correct? >> that is correct. the strategy is a counterinsurgency strategy. >> thank you. that involves all that was said just a few minutes ago. in other words, nation-building is very much a part of this. >> from my perspective, it is not very much a part of this. it is a counterinsurgency strategy focused on a limited objectives, which is what it has been. it is what the president talked about in his speech in 2009. >> the notion of counterterrorism, that is to focus on terrorists wherever they happen to be around the world, seems to be secondary to this mission in afghanistan. >> i think it is not secondary

at all. i have spoken about that before. that is also how it is being executed. i just do not separate the two. >> if i could just add, if you look at the region at large and look at the progress we have made in terms of focusing pressure on al qaeda at senior leadership, we view the osama bin laden rate as the latest example. continues. we looked at it globally. it is an intensification of our focus on counter-terrorism. >> or all of the taliban the same -- are all of the taliban and the same and they had the same goal? >> they are not all the same. this is a divorce, symbiotic network of groups that assist one another, that rely on one

another, that do have overlapping, but sometimes distinct bills. >> some would describe afghanistan as a five or six sided civil war. you agree or disagree with that? >> i would disagree with that. i think what is happening right now in afghanistan is really the emergence of a nation from 30 years of war. and the rejection of the taliban by the population. with that, the reduction of the threat to us because, as the population rejects that movement and as they build their own national capacity, afghanistan is less and less likely to become a safe haven for al qaeda and attacks against the united states and its allies. >> this border area that we have obviously focused on -- allocate

it receives the focus -- i have lost terrorist organizations over the last three or four years merged with each other, increase their horizons in terms of their objectives. it is now in the west and has transnational aspirations. we see the terrorist organizations. they are different, but in support of each other. this is the epicenter of terrorism in the world. that is one of the reasons that focus on both afghanistan and pakistan is so important. >> what is the cost of the strategy that you describe to us today? >> if you look at the costs over

time, what we do see happening is that those costs actually coming down. >> let's be very specific. surely you have figured out what the cost of your strategy is. >> for 2011, the cost for afghanistan was $43 billion. the request for afghanistan. >> we are running at about 10 bit dollars million a month. -- $10 billion a month. the 2011 request was for one under $17 billion. the bill is coming out about $30 billion to $40 billion per year based on the strategy. >> less than $120 billion for 2012.

it is about a $40 billion declined. >> would you please give us those numbers? thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral mullen, undersecretary, thank you for your service and dedication to this country. counter-terrorism and counterinsurgency are not absolutes. it is really more of a continuing. how would you gauge the current strategy? are we shifting a little bit more to add more counter- terrorism elements as we draw down forces, or how would you state that, admiral mullen? >> again, i think where we are a year from now will be determined on how it goes this year. we are heavily focused on both as we speak. the effort inside the counterinsurgency strategy is

significant. general petraeus ask for and got more forces to do that. will there be a different ballots a year from now? probably. how much? i think it is hard to say. what forces and the commander on the ground recommends taken out next year will be determined by what happens this year. we are not even halfway through this fighting season. it is difficult to say exactly how it is going to look a year from now. >> admiral mullen, i think you stated, "in a counterinsurgency , far power equals manpower." what does that mean? >> you have to have people out there engaged in the whole idea. kantor said it's the best to focus on and protect the people, in this case the afghan people. what is important is this goes back to the success of the

afghans to search the forces. the army, for sure, the police, absolutely. not unlike iraq, the police lag the development here, although it is going better and better. in the end, it is the protection of the people, security for the people, and there is going to be in numbers a larger number of people focused on this in 2012 than it focused on this in 2011. it is not just u.s. manpower or coalition manpower, it is the totality of manpower. in fact, the bfo's -- that is the norm -- that is an enormously successful program. >> admiral mullen, in the lisbon conference that i believe the policy decision coming out of

that was that we would transfer operational control to afghan security forces by the end of 2014 -- could you be more specific as to what that will look like? does that mean we will still have some boots on the ground in support of afghan security forces? >> the model that is very much in the front of our mind is iraq. we will clearly continue to have forces there. the lisbon commitment is to have afghans in the lead throughout the country in every single district by the end of 2014. that is where we are headed. as much to advise, assess, and support as necessary at that point. in terms of the growth rate and learning right, they are on a pretty good slip right now.

>> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my questions flow along the line of what mr. wilson brought up earlier and mr. davis. talking about the drawdown being determined by conditions on the ground, the movement towards the afghan national police being able to take over. my concern comes from the future of this operation at an economic level. the afghan security forces are taking over more geography. have we created a situation

where the afghan economy will not be able to support that? we have to look at this. if the crystal ball says that we will be drawn down to a condition like anorak right now by 2014, what is the dollar amount that the afghan government, the afghan economy is going to have to generate? how much support will be there in a financial sense? >> that is something that we are looking at in great detail right now. once the insurgency in the level of threat is degraded, they may be experiencing their own search right now. maybe they will settle at a lower level. they're working very hard on revenue generation.

weather is hot substantially increasing their revenues, working with them on industries to gain from strategic mineral and mining resources, we have to get this on a more sustainable footing. we are working through that now with analysis. let me be clear, if this is going to be a substantial effort, it will require international assistance. >> the support from this committee, they are doing -- they are educators, counselors, parents and are doing more than

probably any that any military will have to do. it seems we have developed a model the is not sustainable. the shrinking of the security forces, we call them layoffs. it means there is people not working. the delta is so large, it will receive many decades of support. >> thank you, madam secretary and admiral for being here today.

not withstanding your reassurances, i am not yet comfortable that your decisions related to the drawdown or future decisions in afghanistan are, in fact, going to be primarily based upon conditions on the ground. i hope to get comfortable with that. one of the conditions that i see is very important are existing force postures. the conditions on the ground in pakistan where there are elements of various extremist elements like elements of the taliban that reside in a relatively safer haven than afghanistan. u.s. knowledge that yourself, admiral. that the situation in pakistan is a significant inherent risks to the overall strategy.

these elements, extras laying in wait in pakistan threatens the very conditions, the destabilizing conditions that justify our presence in afghanistan. regardless of our progress of the overall strategy, my first question laying the groundwork is, are you prepared to say that the conditions on the ground in pakistan have improved that the threat to the government has diminished to a significant degree? >> it is important to remember the core goal of the president's strategy was to disrupt,

dismantle, and defeat al qaeda. al qaeda is on the ropes. it is not over. they would like to kill as many of us as they possibly could. secondly is to make sure that afghanistan can turn into fertile ground that would threaten us long term. that is what the afghanistan piece of this is. >> i will very rudely interject, which is a euphemism for interrupting on the hill. we are trying to create conditions where afghanistan can become a safe haven, but it seems like pakistan is a relatively safer haven already. >> targeting organizations, the afghan caliban, -- taliban, the pakistani partners is

problematic. and what the strategy is intended to do -- >> we are approaching pakistan with a limited sort of counter terrorism strategy. we have the uav's. yes? >> our approach with pakistan is to engage them to try to partner with them, support them in training so that they can deal with the threats that are both internal to them as well as external. and that is a difficult strategy and execution.

>> we can never send in enough american troops to afghanistan to create conditions where the extremists across the border in pakistan would not present a threat to the afghans, conceivably a threat to the united states. this all depends on the pakistanis playing ball. >> there has been that strategy from the beginning. >> is the remaining presents a hedge against or a deterrent to future efforts by these militants in pakistan to use regions of the country has an unfettered training ground her for their activities, or a worst case scenario to get control of the nuclear arsenal through violent means?

>> they are very concerned about an unstable afghanistan that could threaten them with a much larger force. some level of stability in peaceful outcome is important. if we can, pakistan will come to that. >> we should in no way factor and that our troops are playing a productive role in perhaps deterring these extr mr.emist -- extremists from taking control of the nuclear arsenal. >> if we could get that answer and the question on the record, will would appreciate it.

>> admiral, thank you for being here. thank you for your service to our country and all that you do to keep america safe. let me just say that we are concerned that we are reaching the point of diminishing returns in afghanistan. of the war has caused billions of dollars. the emerging threats here yesterday, involving terrorist threats, the national defense university noted that al qaeda no longer exists in afghanistan. redeployed to eliminate them and deny the region as a source of

terrorist activity. it is effectively gone from afghanistan, but new terrorist threats are being cultivated. and the strategy released last night is going to bring home 33 -- my question is, is there reason to leave the number there and insure that we have enough troops to support another wave of heightened violence -- i have

transparency in both worlds, and the question of the game that would justify as keeping the additional 23,000 troops until next summer. is there rationale for bringing the rest home by the end of this year? my constituents are looking for that answer and i need to have him as well. >> from a military standpoint, it is the focus on keeping the fire power, if you will, the manpower through the fighting season. and then obviously putting the commander in a position. i get that there is a very small number in afghanistan, but that

is not the case in pakistan. i never looked at this as a single country approach. it is the region, and the other core objective, if you will, is to make sure that afghanistan is stable enough so that were returned to where it was when they grew up there. there are growing numbers of those. that is where we are in afghanistan. they're very tightly wound with the network that will try to destabilize afghanistan and a takeover that the government. i am hard-pressed to think that if they are still running the country or get back to that position, they won't be the host, if you will, for

organizations in the past. the focus, i think, is to have as much, got through this fighting season and the importance of getting through the next fighting season as well and moving troop movement back. it is time to bring the troops out. >> let me try this from another perspective. the plan over the next year, why are we not putting our forces in half by next summer? what is the modular utility for having the extra 17,000 troops there between the 30,000 that the president wants to bring home by next summer and achieving 50%, 70,000 troops by the summer.

>> if we did what you just described, wheat and do all of the gains. the strategy has no chance of succeeding if we were to do that. >> i know that my time has expired. we obviously have tough questions in a tough road ahead. i appreciate the work that you are doing. >> admiral, i have a couple of questions. my concern, after being there a couple of weeks ago and talking to the soldiers, and you hit on this when congressman cooper was talking about pakistan. a realize that we were not

talking about pakistan, am i mistaken? >> it goes to the regional approach. >> my concern, and if you would speak to this, as you sit there, somebody we rely on to help us make the decisions, your statement was that al qaeda is on their heels and the taliban is in check. >> the taliban is in check in the south, they are not in the east. >> we have them on our heels.

>> that we can accept the risk associated with that brought down while still being able to succeed in the overall strategy based on the game's of the surge over the course of the last 18 months or so. >> they have all announced troop withdrawals. is that correct? >> they are modest and not uniform at all. they are more modest in general than what we have proposed. that is what we are sticking with and i have not heard anybody walking away from what we agreed at lisbon.

>> is the total nato force going to be u.s. and coalition forces? is that classified information? we don't know where it will be a year from now. we certainly released the numbers of where we are today. we don't know where we will be at the end of next summer. but there will not be dramatic increases hoare people departing the coalition. there is a lot of commitment. >> is important what the total force is?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. my question, whichever one of you can answer is they think the public is a bit confused about what 2014 represents. given the announcement of the numbers that we are withdrawing, by the end we would have withdrawn our troops. the time that afghanistan takes over the whole military effort. so given that, what are the numbers that are anticipated? you may statement, if peace is achieved and the numbers that are currently planned may be reduced. i assume there is some understanding.

>> we will be able to shift of the mission focused more towards adviser, assist, training, supporting them. this is a lot of what we are fleshing out about an enduring strategic partnership. we know what until the status is, it will be smaller, have emissions that will become increasingly more focused on supporting and enabling afghan. >> the number of what the troop strength was, 2008, after

president obama came into office, it looks like a doubling of those numbers if i remember correctly. we went up to 60,000 and we are now up to 100,000. we will draw down 33,000 by the end of next year. and the question becomes from that, at 70,000 that we have left, not as large or whatever it is, what does it look like in terms of the relationship of those numbers? >> the thing that they have said at the beginning of the strategy is that they will commit to periodically reviewing. i would anticipate that the regular process that we have

demonstrated will continue through this administration and i would hope on through to 2014 and beyond. >> somebody wants to know in plain english, are we going to have troops in afghanistan? or are we not going to have troops in afghanistan? we're going to have troops, we just don't know how many there will be. >> we will have troops with how much reduced numbers. they will be leading their own security at that time. >> troops, with guns, that will be in some way in of harm's way. that is what people are really concerned about. the respect of of what their agenda maybe, we will have men and women in uniform that will

be potentially in jeopardy after 2014. >> the president has not decided on the character or numbers beyond 2014. i think it would be unwise for someone to do that at this point in time and giving you my best judgment that there will still be emission for the united states that will be supporting the afghans as they take the lead for security in their own country. >> the bottom line question is very simple. there may be a potential for harm's way unless they will be somewhat protected. they still will have a potential of being injured and potentially

kill. >> i think that we anticipated a residual force, but i don't want to put words in the present at's mouth. -- is the president's mouth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're certainly grateful for both of you and your dedicated service and great leadership. i will try to be quick. about the impact of what we're doing in pakistan, we have troops [unintelligible]

as well as visits to pakistan and the importance of them partnering with us. and we don't send the wrong message to focus on the insurgents that are a threat to them. and they continue to partner with us. he raises his issues pretty well. probably my main concern is that i have always said in iraq and afghanistan, it was an important part of what the president said in december of 2009 when he laid out his plans for the surge that i commend him for doing. an important caveat was facts on the ground. will begin drawing more this year. we already know what the facts

on the ground are going to be next year. rather than waiting to see what the fax actually our next year. that is a concern i have. and the importance of afghan security forces, the key aspect of what they are doing. you've talked about the importance of them being trained as part of the calculation in this drawdown. i assume you have calculated,

which will probably lose 30% of that. >> expectations about both are based on what we have experienced today and the progress in bringing the attention of. more and more units, all of the units in the south and southwest. they're able to get a very good sense. >> it raises a follow-up question, we're treating them up through basics. the desertion or attrition rate, to counter that, we have to

continue to partner. because there are forces there to partner with, how they do that partnering with that many less u.s. forces. gosh i don't anticipate a significant shortfall in that regard. what we're getting as we grow the force is more time to pull units up for retraining, more time for leaders for further development. the admiral mentioned the specialty schools that are developing via allen enablers and specialists and so forth. i think the what has put the effort at risk in any way. >> the best training we give them is when they are out there

in the field with the best qualified and best trained most capable force in the world. we do not equate in newly trained security force individual because there is obviously a huge difference. as i run out of time, my hope is that we get to next year with the 23,000 the number. if the facts are not what we hope they will be, we don't go forward and then. a final comment, we are indebted to you and your family for your heroic service. thank you for what you have done for all of us. for all of us.