>> mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the president can't win on this one. one side will say they you are withdrawing too many troops at a time when we need to have them stay the course. in of the other side, folks say, look. we are tired of war, bring the troops home. over there the door and bring you it was put all the money into reducing our debt. the president cannot win. there is another way. first of all, i appreciate your being here today.

i want everyone to remember that the president was clear in his 2008 campaign. he said he would draw down u.s. forces from iraq. he said he would refocus on the neglected war in afghanistan. he has made good on both of those commitments. and the spring of 2009, we had 130 ayotte and j in the spring of 2009, we had one of 31 trips on the ground in iraq. by the end of this year, we will have less than 130 department of defense troops on the grounds unless there is some change in the security agreement. with the addition of 30,000 troops, we have been successful

by all accounts. we have degraded insurgent groups. we denied them territory while disrupting transnational terrorists to continue to threaten us. the president has also made perfectly clear when he pledged additional forces to afghanistan. he would begin to return those troops home in july of this year. last night, the president made good on that commitment. 10,000 troops by the end of this year. over the next year, approximately 30,000 troops to

return from afghanistan. what would it look like if we left right now? if we just decided to close the book on this painful error in our history ourera -- painful era in our history. what with the area look like? what would the future look like for americans? could we think that we did not have to worry. what about pakistan, a nuclear country, right next door to

india, a nuclear country. india having been the victim in the mumbai attacks of a terrorist plot hatched in pakistan. what would we do if we let that area and just totally destabilized by withdrawing our troops from afghanistan? i admit that it would not look pretty in the long term. we would end up having to recommit troops at a greater expense and a time when we would least be able to afford it. i regretted the we have put into that kind of situation that we are in. i regret that. this is where we are.

what do we do from here? i think the president has made the right decision i want to search every major home if i could. it will not be the response to a thing to do. i want to encourage the people to support the president. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. thank you for your sacrifice. we do leave and do we deeply appreciate that. we have heard a lot about numbers. we have heard a lot about time lines. we have heard a lot about the

generalities of what we talked about. why we are drawing down troops. it seems to me that there is another ellen there for the element of their that should be asked concerning. that is what is currently occurring in pakistan. my concern is that we can mount the greatest effort. if we do not have an equal effort, and then we will not be successful in where we all want to be in the long run. he said even if they do not do nothing more than what they are doing today, we would be ok in afghanistan. in light of the current and with the current projection of force drawn down, do you believe we will still be

in good shape with our operations in afghanistan? ultimately, we can displace al qaeda with the current situation. >> i think the calculus will depend on how things go in afghanistan. at the same time, they are going through an incredibly difficult time right now. it is not just in the relationship with the united states but internally. i said before the entire chain of command thinks they sustain their relationship. i am heartened by the fact that we are going through very difficult time.

the relationship is still there. we have to be moderate. we have to be careful about how we proceed. in the long run, i think it is both countries. i think the pakistan piece of this is a very risky part of the overall strategy. it is not just afghanistan and pakistan. all of this -- i worry a lot that we will be back and it'll be more challenging than it is now and more dangerous. >> i agree wholeheartedly. we really have to look at this region in a very integrated

manner. we have to reinvest in their relationship with pakistan to secure their cooperation that we need from them. also in helping to reach the stability. >> let me ask you this. far i guarantee you or both of you confident that we can get to the point where the relationship with what we are dealing with will get this to the point where the efforts will be on the level of where we believe they need to be? i know there are many concerns about their current level of leverage the special on many of the network said that we are dealing with. the concern is that we do our part on one side in afghanistan and there is safe harbor on the

other side. even in light of the difficult corner, d.c. is being able to get to a point -- do you see us being able to get to a point to have an army combating the talent and in a way that helps us strategically in the region in talbia --- taliban in a way that helps a strategically in the region? >> they will face strategic choices in terms where they want to end up when this comes to a successful conclusion. i think the real question is what role they will play politically in helping to get to a political end the gamgame. i think that is where their key decisions will live. that will have a huge impact also on our relationship with

the us. >> thank you. thank you for sticking around in helping us out. admiral, you said that we are going to continue our partnerships. i think that if there is something lacking, it is further defining what the relationship will look like. i wrote a letter to you a couple weeks back on this very question about what this transition from troops to trade doesn't look like. i think we needed to maintain and substantial commitment to afghanistan. i think it will and ought to

change in nature. i think most americans wanted to change in nature. it is a matter of what it looks like in the future. i would be interested in hearing about what their relationship looks like. what is the strategic partner? it will send a message that we are not leading likely did in the '80s. we are not there militarily. >> thank you. the strategic partnership will have many dimensions. one will be a sustained engagement. there will be investment opportunities. that is already being seen in some sectors like the telecommunications and agriculture.

i think there will be a security operation that will be very important to continuing to push our counter-terrorism interest and support the development of the afghan national security tauruses. i think it'll be multi dimensional. i think there'll be people to people alamance. the key message -- people to people elements. the key message is that the military drawdown will take responsibility for their security. we are not going away in a relationship cents. we held vital interest. we have the objectives of disrupting in defeating al qaeda. it is one that is not going anywhere. we will stick with this. we will stay with the partnership even as the nature of the means by which to do it

will change. >> do you have anything to add? >> it is tied up into this whole idea of transition and focus multi sector. there are ongoing negotiations right now about what this strategic agreement with look- alike from my perspective. i am not involved in this. from my perspective, it is talking about the right things. the president of the united states in afghanistan are committed to this. that will be the framework for how this looks. it is based on the assumption that we get to a point where we have a successful transition and they are in charge of their armed security. there is a commitment to a long- term relationship.

it sustains the level of stability. it is so that it can grow. people do have comfort and \ in investing. >> i think they are responsible indeliberate drawdown from being more deliberate can happen fast. i do not want this to think -- i've been talking to folks at home vested to get out of afghanistan. if we do that, what do we have left? had a thought about that? they do not think about that. we need to be thinking about it. what is a look like in the future? i want to make sure that you are all talking about what this looks like in the future.

the current country is the afghanistan/u.s. relationship dwindling. >> we will be gone back here to talk about that in more detail. >> we have a stop at 1230. we had two more members with questions. i would ask the members to keep it brief. they will continue. >> thank you very much. thank you for your service. thank you for being here. i want to ask you, looking at afghanistan in the history of afghanistan and the difficulty in establishing center control

and a strong central government, what changes have you seen over the past three years if any in terms of the people of afghanistan willing to except is strong central government of a one nation state. any comment on that? i believe the answer is drug- related to our chances of success long term. >> i do think they increasingly do have a sense of common nation. i think the level of government that matters the most is participating lately.

a lot of afghanistan of worry about what is happening. they focus is he listening to our priorities. are they not playing upon me. but the first place to have to hell is that the local district level. working on the national government, we are making process. this will take quite some time. in the meantime, they are kind of fell local levels. i was in afghanistan about three weeks ago. i was able to visit some of the larger areas. i was able to go and of sir the

special forces. this is in the last 18 months or 15 years. i was able to see that firsthand. he had scheduled the trip. he assured me that he did not plant that for me. we enjoyed it nonetheless. thank you for your time. be appreciated. >> the gentleman yield back. >> thank you. thank you for saying a few extra minutes. i was struck listing tears testimony today. yesterday we had a hearing on an update on iraq and the drawdown.

again, it was amazing to hear the story of how we will be at about 157 by the end of this year. having sat through a number of those hearings, he has done stellar service in terms of helping guide our country for that challenge. again, i should tip my hat to you. what we heard yesterday was a real amazing accomplishment under your leadership. it also struck me that when we had the agreement that said the path down, it was about whether military advice is being set aside and whether it is getting too far into higher-margin of risk. finall be one of your appearances before the committee.

was wondering if you want to share a perspective about that. these are different parts of the world in conflict. there should be some confidence that we can draw back here success. that is what we are contemplating. >> we forgot how bad it was. we are in free fall. there was uncertainty on whether it clearly did term. it was there and so many different ways. the understand that.

but this is what we are trying to follow. i believe there will be limited refocus. i think the long run is decentralized. that is my perspective. how many are left in afghanistan? this is unless we reach some agreement. we wanted a strong partnership. it is a little more evident than they were in 2006 and 2007.

we seek the same kind of relationship with afghanistan. there are huge differences. we have to take into consideration the similarities and differences. we were in our fourth and fifth year. now it is five years later. >> there are always subject to some change. there are other governments as well. i hope that would be one of the general similarities that will help us get through this.

>> one of the things that happened in 2009 when he said he was settling to bring troops of this july, which she has since made the decision on doing them is that they really did energize the afghans. this sends a strong message that this is not open ended. you will have to get up and take care of yourself. i talked about the risk associated. there is another side. there is the potential upside. they know how serious we are. they are good to have to continue to improve. they have made a lot of improvements. >> if you have any closing comments, i would be happy to hear them now. >> i like to say thank you for

hosting us today. i think the dialogue is incredibly important. they are incredibly courageous. it is incredible for years and years. where do not capture what you have done. but cannot tell you how much we appreciate all of you. thank you. you are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of richards from afghanistan by the end of this year. we will bring home a total 33,000 troops by next summer. >> follow the timeline and search over 5000 entries online.

this is since 1987. it is washington coming your way. president obama visited soldiers at fort drum in new york today and talk more about his plan for reducing u.s. troops in afghanistan. they testified afghanistan and pakistan. >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, jim mcgovern will give his perspective on president obama's to production plan. it was pulled up a bipartisan budget negotiations led by the vice president perrin he serves on the house budget and

appropriations committee. it is washington journal, each morning pain >> next, president obama visit fort drum in new york and discusses trip reductions in afghanistan over the next year. this has been one of the most frequently deployed division sent to afghanistan hi. these remarks are just under 20 minutes. >> but at ease, everybody. let me begin by saying -- i have a microphone. go ahead. >> welcome today. it is a pleasure to introduce

these great soldiers. he gave a speech at west point. within several weeks, and they began to deploy. this is part of the mission. we send our squadron down there. they brought improved government. then the rest of us operated in northern afghanistan. it is a great privilege to share the soldiers with you today. they represent about 4000. thank you. >> thank you. i do not want to give a long speech. i want to spend most of my time shaking hands and thanking all

of the. to all of you, there is a reason why i want to come here today. in 2009, after having been in afghanistan for 2000 years -- for two years and having lost a sense of focus. i made the most difficult decision that i have made. that is to deploy an additional 30,000 troops in afghanistan so that we can turn back taliban momentum and we can continue to go after al qaeda aggressively and said that we can make sure that we were training forces that had the capacity to secure their own country. the only reason as able to make

that decision was because i knew that we had the finest fighting force in the world's and that i gave a command to our troops, they would be able to accomplish that mission. if we were focused unclear, i knew we can get it done. nd the 10th mountain division, this storied -- this group that has been there for america day in, day out throughout our history, was the first folks to go in after that order was given. and that's not surprising, because you guys were also some of the first folks to go in right after 9/11. throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a president, i've always run into you guys. and for some reason it's always

in some rough spots. first time i saw 10th mountain division, you guys were in southern iraq. when i went back to visit afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. i had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, jared monti, was the first person who i was able to award the medal of honor to who actually came back and wasn't receiving it posthumously. and so you guys have always been there in the toughest fights. and the fact that you are continuing, even as we speak, that many of your comrades are there right now under some very

tough circumstances, is a testimony to your dedication and your patriotism. now, last night, i gave a speech in which i said that we have turned a corner where we can begin to bring back some of our troops. we're not doing it precipitously. we're going to do it in a steady way to make sure that the gains that all of you helped to bring about are going to be sustained. but because of your outstanding work, what we've been able to do is train an additional 100,000 afghan soldiers so that they can start carrying on the fight. because of what you've done, areas like kandahar are more secure than they have been in years. because of you, we're now taking the fight to the taliban instead of the taliban bringing the fight to us. and because of you, there are signs that the taliban may be interested in figuring out a

political settlement, which ultimately is going to be critical for consolidating that country. it's also because of you that we had the platform to be able to go after bin laden and al qaeda. and we have decimated their ranks. al qaeda leadership -- half of them have been killed, and most of them are now on the run and they can't operate as effectively as they could. and so as i look around this room i suspect that some of you joined the military after 9/11 because you had seen fellow americans suffer at the hands of bin laden. and when we got them -- when he got him -- and as we keep on driving to get the rest of them, it's because of the work and the sacrifice that you guys have made.

now, the 10th mountain and the 1st brigade, you guys have sacrificed mightily. i know that you got 11 fallen soldiers just out of this group right here, and i think about 270 all told since 9/11. we will never forget their sacrifice. and the reason that i know many of you continue to do the outstanding work that you do is not only love of country but it's also love for each other, and your commitment to making sure that those sacrifices were not in vain. so the main message i have for all of you here today is that the american people understand the sacrifices you're making,

they understand the sacrifices that your families are making. our job is not finished. if you looked at the schedule that i set forth, we're only bringing out 10,000 by the end of this year. we're going to bring out all 33,000 that we surged by next summer. but there's still some fighting to be done. and then we're still going to have 68,000. and, frankly, the 10th mountain division is still going to be represented there until we have fully transferred to the afghan military and security forces. but i hope that all of you can both take pride in what you've done over the past years, but also understand that there's a future there that is brighter not only for the afghan people, but for -- most importantly, for american security. and you guys are the tip of the

spear. you guys are the ones that keep us safe each and every day. so, for all the sacrifices that you've made, i want to say thank you. for all the sacrifices that your families have made, i want to say thank you. i have no greater job, nothing gives me more honor than serving as your commander-in-chief. and to all of you who are potentially going to be redeployed, just know that your commander-in-chief has your back. so thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. climb to glory. thank you >> brief field to talk a little bit. it will take me while to make my way -- feel free to talk a little bit. will take me a while to make my way across the room.

>> last night in a speech,

president obama said that he would bring home 33 troops on afghanistan. earlier today, and number of house members came to the floor to talk about his strategy. we start with charlie rangel. >> once again, i come before this house. i know send you think this does not make sense. the only person i saw that was making sacrifices. they are volunteered, they come from canada keys were most of them are not wealthy. defend the flag. every war, every time our

nation is threatened, all of the american people should be prepared to make some sacrifice . those of us in congress, when we authorized troops to go overseas should not say that we have volunteers willing to do it. we should say that we have americans that come from our amilies, our communities, our states and their wealth should not be an issue. everyone should be there. now that the president has dramatically reduced the need for all of those volunteers, why don't we mandate that every american make some sacrifice? let them be trained during this transition as we withdrawal our troops. let them to be able to do something to make certain that america remains strong. this too serious an issue. it's not a democrat or republican issue. it's a moral issue.

true is the dollar spent in undeclared wars. but who's paying for it? the poorest among us, the lesser among us and joblessness and homelessness. and now the wealthiest of mericans have the lowest tax rates since 1950. and really it just bothers people when you say ty, too, should make some sacrifices. not just for the war that don't support but for the security, the economic security of this nation where the debt ceiling is going to be an issue. those paying for the cuts have nothing to do for the crisis that we're in. so i conclude, i'll be back in support of h.r. 1152, and i will ask you to consider that as we wind down from our involvement in the middle east, think about giving some relief to our volunteers. think about asking our young

americans to make some type of commitment. think about having an america that says, yes, i support the involvement and am prepared to make sacrifices which cludes my family, my community and our great nation. we should not just have professional volunteers. it's not america. it is not moral. when our country is involved, everyone should be prepared either to stand up and be counted or don't support this type of involvement. it's not just costly financially, but our america looks throughout the world, especially among our young people, most of whom do not know any period of timthat we haven't been involved in a war. so if we're not prepared to be honest enough to call a war a war, if we're not prepared to

put every congress, every president, republican or democrat on the line for constitutional reasons, for god sake, let's find some fairness as we ask people to put their lives on the line for our great nation. and it's not just the lives. it's not just how they come back home but the mental disturbance and problems that we're bringing to our great country. it's going to be not just trillions of dollars but adveely affecting our ability to deal with education and training and technology and research while we try so desperately hard to bring these people to some type of normality for the sacrifices they made to our country. so h.r. 1132 only says if we have to be involved, don't have just a small segment of our great nation. pay the ultimate sacrifice

while others make no sacrifice at all. please consider a bill that mandates that everybody from 18 to 25, 26 to have some type of mandatory service for our great country, and we will only select those people that we need for the military. if indeed there's a transition that we support, it means they can support our country, our national security, support our armed forces and not really hopefully be in harm's way. please really consider it and rest assured that i will return with this plea from time to time. i yield back, mr. speaker, the consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, last night the president outlined his strategy for afghanistan which included a drawdown of 10,000 troops by the end of this year and an additional 23,000 by the

end of next year. i believe this is insufficient and i fear it means more of the same for the next 18 months. the same strategy means the same cost. and i'm sad to say even more casualties. more american soldiers losing their lives in support of an afghan government that is terribly corrupt and incompetent. we have been doing this for 10 years. it's the longest war in our history, mr. speaker. enough. our focus should be on encouraging a negotiated settlement, a political solution, and bringing our troops home where they belong. our troops are incredible men and women. i am in awe of their dedication and their commitment. they don't belong in the middle of mountains and deserts fighting a cruel war. according to the pentagon's own figures, u.s. and coalition casualties in afghanistan are steadily rising. last month was a record high for the number of coalition forces killed. march and april were also the worst respective months of the war in terms of casualties for

u.s. forces, coalition forces, and afghan civilians. a poll last month by the international council on security and development found that afghans are overwhelmingly opposed to the current u.s. strategy with nearly eight in 10 believing that u.s. and coalition operations are, quote, bad for their country, end quote. these are serious matters, serious consequences of the strategy the u.s. will pursue at least through next year. we need a change in direction now, mr. speaker. not 18 months from now. we are borrowing nearly $10 billion a month to pay for military operations in afghanistan. borrowing. we are not paying for it. we are putting it on our national credit card. our kids and grandkids will pay the price. each day we remain in afghanistan increases that burden. we are currently having debates about how to reduce our deficit and debt. there are some who have advocated deep cuts in programs that help the poor.

in pell grants and infrastructure. for those who support the status quo in afghanistan, let me ask, where is the sense in borrowing money to build a bridge or school in afghanistan that later gets blown up while telling our cities and towns we have no money to help them with their needs? it's nuts. some of our biggest problems, mr. speaker, are not halfway around the world, they are halfway down the block. americans are willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure our national security. but let me remind my colleagues that national security includes economic security. it means jobs. it means rather than nation building in a far off land, we need to do more nation building right here at home. contrary to the tired and ugly rhetoric employed by senator mccain yesterday towards thoughtful critics of our strategy in afghanistan and its consequences, i'm not an isolationist. as my colleagues know, i firmly support human rights and the u.s. being engaged around the world. those who advocate a political solution in afghanistan are not

isolationingses. i don't believe we should walk away from the afghan people, but tens of thousands of u.s. boots on the ground in afghanistan does little in my view to advance the cause of peace, protect the rights of member, and ethnic minorities, or strengthen civil society. if you want to protect afghan women, we must end the violence. you end the violence by ending the war. you end the war to a political solution. i have great respect for president obama. i believe he has the potential to be a great president. i also realize as lyndon johnson once said, it's easy to get into war, hard as hell to get out of one. it is not easy to end this war. it won't be neat or pretty. i believe with all my heart it's in our national security interest to focus on al qaeda and not waste our precious blood and treasure in a conflict that can only be ended through a political solution. rather than crafting a compromise and trying to chart a middle course, i believe we need to change course. i urge the president of the united states to rethink our afghan policy. we think it in a way that brings our troops home sooner rather

ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, like many americans, i was profoundly disappointed in president obama's announcement last night . i had hoped that he would offer an afghanistan troop drawdown that was significant, swift and sizeable. sadly, the proposal failed on all three counts. now is the time for bold action and decisionmaking to bring our nation and ghanistan policy in line with what the american people want while recognizing the deep and grave toll this war has takenn our global credibility and our national security. instead, the administration's office was largely stay the course. instead, president obama chose o perpetuate a war that is not only bankrupting us morally but fiscally as well.

the loss in blood and treasure cannot be underestimated. the american people have endured great sacrifice, but after nearly a decade of war, they're weary of losing their bravest men and women and their hard-earned tax dollars to a policy that simple has not achieved its goal. we are not more secure. the afghanistan leadership wants us out, and their people do not appreciate our sacrifice. this is not a partisan issue. when asked, the majority of americans wt our troops to come home. and not several years into the future. no. they want our troops to come home now. abandoning this military policy does not mean that we will abandon the people of afghanistan. a smart security plan would provide for depofmente and

reconciliation -- development and reconciliation. it would bring the international community together and help the afghan people move towards a sustainable future with economic support and other means. more than 1,600 lives have been lost. where will it end? when will our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, friends and people we know in the community come home from afghanistan? how many empty chairs are there at the dinner table tonight? when will the heartbreak end? and let's talk about the economic cost. my collgu on the other side of the aisle like to talk about dollars and cents, bt how this and other actions we take are costing us too much money. well, while we stand here, money is flying out of our

treasury to support this war. try $10 billion a month. imagine what we could do with $10 billion a month. just last week this use voted to take food from the mouths of pregnant women and their children. we're supposed to pinch pennies on important investments like our children and other american projects while we waste huge sums on a failed war. this boggles the mind and it shortchanges the needs we have right here at home. it is long past time, mr. speaker, that we put an end to this madness. it is time to bring our troops home, all of our troops safely. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker. there's something that i'll personally never forget and

that occurred in april of 2007. and i'll get to why that is something i'll never forget in a second. that's when majority leader, senator harry reid, said of iraq, quote, i believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense -- and you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows, he said, is that this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in iraq. as in 2007, harry reid was a rush to the exits in iraq and a rush to declare a win had been lost. i had been in a nation by afghanistan getting ready to fly a kc-1 aircraft, and while

i was on the thread mill exercising i found what the fourth most powerful guy in politics said and i felt it in my soul, i felt anger. i knew there was celebrating in the caves in iraq and the caves in afghanistan because the united states said we were going to lose. well, guess what? it took the brave leadership of somebody to say we will not lose in iraq, and we're on the verge of victory, and we had a surge in iraq and today it appears to be a more stabilizing situation and hopefully in 10 years iraq will be an example of democracy in the middle east. last night i heard the president say nothing of the word victory in afghanistan but talk about how this is the beginning of the end. general mcchrystal recommended to the president that to win in afghanistan we need 80,000 additional troops. mr. president, at a bear minimum, we need 40,000

additional troops. the president gave 30,000. and in giving the 30,000 he immediately gave a timeline for withdrawal. now, i will tell you the taliban are used to fighting for long periods of time and they know if they have to simply wait another couple of years that's an encouragement to them. but i supported and support what the president was doing in afghanistan up until last night. even though i believe he should have given the troops required for victory, victory, but last night i saw that all troops are going to be pulled out, all the surge troops are going to be pulled out of afghanistan magically by election day. as a military pilot, i can tell you, as an air national guard pilot still, i can tell you the soldiers are weary of war. the american people is weary of war. but leadership is not about saying we're tired, we're going to quit. it's about standing up for freedom and standing against those that would destroy our way of life.

i was in afghanistan just a month ago talking to generals on the ground who say we literally have turned a corner in afghanistan. it is bewilledering to me that yesterday we send a -- bewilledering to me that yesterday we send a message that we're wrapping things up. and it's the beginning of the end. let me ask you, do you believe last night in the president's speech that the taliban was sad to hear what he was saying or that they were happy to hear it? ladies and gentlemen, just as senate majority leader harry reid couldn't have been in a bigger hurry to the access of iraq, he, too, was wrong. we will be proven wrong again. america has a vested interest and seeing an afghanistan that can stand up against terrorism, that can defend itself against terrorists who seeks to overthrow their country, that

seeks to overthrow pakistan and can do so with limited u.s. help. that's when we can begin to see victory. or we can just give up. i can tell you that as a soldier -- as a military member and the military members i talked to, we don't want to have to be there another day. but we also don't want to come home in any condition less than total victory. let us finish the job. let the generals on the ground have the tools they need to finish the job. how we get good news and turn that into a immediate pullout of afghanistan is beyond me but, mr. president, i did not hear you one time last night mention the word victory in your speech. i hope that was a needless and sad omission from your speech and did not reflect what you believe in afghanistan. ladies and gentlemen, we can win. america only loses when we

choose to. america will win in mr. defazio: the united states objective in afghanistan was to root out, destroy al qaeda, osama bin laden, and their taliban hosts. that job is done. afghanistan has been superseded now as a haven for terrorists by tribal areas in pakistan, yemen, and sudan. the interand intratribal disputes in afghanistan are rooted in ancient history. and 12 to 36 more months of large u.s. troop footprint is not going to resolve centuries old conflicts among the afghan tribes. there never has been, there never will be a strong central government in afghistan.

so i disagree with the president's plan for a snail's pace, partial drawdown of u.s. troops over the next few years. we should do it much more quickly and leave only a residual force to prevent a trorist takeover. there are only a few thousand troops there when we drove out the taliban, and when we pursued osama bin laden. unfortunately we lost an early opportunity to capture and kill him because of mistakes by then secretary donald rumsfeld. but that being done, the president did say something last night with which i strongly agree. he said, america, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. i couldn't agree more. i have been trying to do that for the last 2 1/2 years, but the roadblock down at the white house when i tried to rebuild

the nation's transportation infrastructure. let's think for a minute we are borrowing and spending $120 billion a year in afghanistan. both to support our tops and to engage in nation building. building them schools, building them highways, building them bridges while our own schools, our own highways, our own bridges are crumbling and collapsing. $120 billion borrowed and spent in afghanistan. what could we do with that here at home? we could begin to address the backlog of 150,000 bridges on our national highway system that need repair or replacement. the 0 billion backlog on our transit systems for basic capital maintenance, let alone new investment in new trant systems to more efficiently transport our people. to deal with the 40% of the

payment on the national highway system. to move freight and americans more effectively. and in addressing that with $120 billion that we are borrowing and spending in afghanistan today and instead spending that money here at home, we could put over three million people to work. not just construction workers. people say to mee, congressman, i don't work construction. it's not just construction we have the strongest buy america requirements in transportation of any part of the government. that means when you buy a transit vehicle it will be made in america. that's manufacturing that's software, that's engineering, design. it goes across the economy. it's smalbusiness ppliers, minority suppliers under the laws. we cld put millions to work and stimulate our economy if tht money was spent here. last week i confronted the president's deputy economic advisor over these issues, and he did admit that instead of more tax cuts, which isn't putting anybody back to work, that's their one no, sirrum that seems to be adopted by the

obama administration, hasn't worked for a decade but if we cut them more that will work then. it doesn't work. investment works. we know it works. let's invest. but the president's deputy economic advisor sd you can't do that. can't get the money to do that. but we can do a social security tax holiday and borrow $200 billion more and not put people back to work. come on, let's follow up on what the president sailast night. let's get serious about it. and let's make the investments here. america, it is time to focus on nationuilding here at home and put our people back to work and assure prosperi for future gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg, for five minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. while our president telegraphs to our enemies, a timeline for ending the war that they are certainly willing to continue to commit to. while military efforts continue in libya with uncertain, undisclosed and unsuccessful

outcomes led by our administration under nato command, greater atrocities perpetrated against freedom seekers in syria go unaddressed, unannounced, unconsidered by our president. why? what's the reason? what's the time limit? it is known that syria has been a continuing threat to freedom and a strong supporter and sustainer of unrest and terrorism in the middle east and around the world. they're a strong ally of iran and a constant threat to our friend, israel. as freedom seekers seeking citizens of syria join, mr. speaker, and many others in the middle east in calling for political reforms, respect for human rights and regime change. the government of syria and the president is violently and

sadistically suppressing the syrian people, his own people. tanks, snipers, goon squads, violent attacks on women and children, starvation and dehydration, inhumane imprisonment, torture and worse has been the norm for the syrian people for too long. without a strong and principled response from our president and our nation. why? we're not calling for a war. we're not calling for troops on the ground. we're not calling for anything right now except to take a stand against this atrocity. other nations have stood and voiced their concerns that the president has violated its international obligations, including the international covenant on political and civil rights and the united nations convention against torture and other cruel and inhumane or

degrading punishment. isn't it time for our president and this administration to stand and speak as the world leader that he must be and call president assad to step down and for the syrian government to end its cruel crimes against humanity? i am firmly convinced that the rest of the peace-loving world will respond to our leadership. they're looking for it. they expect it. they're asking for it. and the syrian people will be encouraged and defended and liberty's cause will be promoted in this earthquake zone called the middle east. it's time to speak up. may god grant our president and this administration and our government the courage to do so

because it is for humanity and people like ourselves that we >> the house will take up to measures tomorrow. on military operations in libya. the first will allow limited use of [no audio] but does not authorize the use of ground forces. the second will prohibit funding for u.s. armed forces in military operations in libya with limited exceptions. the house comes in at 9:00 a.m. eastern. live coverage here on c-span. secretary of state hillary clinton said the u.s. will reduce military aid to pakistan if the country fails to address u.s. concerns over its commitment to fight terrorism. that is next on c-span.

and then, republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham speak about operations in afghanistan and libya. tomorrow morning, massachusetts congressman jim mcgovern will get his perspective on president obama's trip reduction plan in afghanistan. the house majority leader eric cantor pulled out of bipartisan budget negotiations led by the vice-president. we will get an update from tom cole who serves on the house budget and appropriations committee. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from afghanistan by the end of this year and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer. >> follow the time line on the war in afghanistan and search over 4000 entries online at the

c-span video library. search, watch, clip, and share every c-span program since 1987. all free, any time. it is washington your way. who would think a youtube rap video on economics would become popular? >> here we are, peace out, a great recession. we're not in a recession. if you follow my lesson, lined up for the recession. we're still in a ditch and still ticking. don't you think it is proper to switch? it is time to get sober. >> we will talk with the creators of "fight of the century." peoplee trying to reach who are interested in how the world works. that is everyone from a high school student who is curious about economics to a person who is just trying to make a living and getting along and who was worried about what is going on.

>> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "q&a". >> secretary of state hillary clinton on capitol hill to testify about pakistan and the president's plan to remove 33,000 troops from afghanistan by next summer. the senate foreign relations committee hearing is two hours, 20 minutes. chaired by massachusetts senator john kerry who just entered the hearing room with secretary clinton. he will double the hearing to order in a moment. -- gavel the hearing to order in a moment.

[gavel] >> the hearing will come to order, please. madam secretary, we're being bombarded with technology by both sides. it is a terrific pleasure to welcome secretary clinton back to the committee and i know that you are literally fresh back

from south america, the caribbean, and we appreciate very much your willingness to take the time from an incredibly hectic schedule in order to join us. your leadership in south asia has been important in many different ways and so we're looking forward to your assessments today where we are. i know you have to rearrange your schedule in order to be here so i express my gratitude to cheryl and her staff to make that happen and for your willingness to do this notwithstanding just getting off a plane. before we began, if i could say, i think you are aware that as soon as we have 10 members, we will do something you want us to do which is quickly half a business meeting in order to approve the nominations, hopefully approve of deputy secretary of state bill burns, and we have another business

meeting for next tuesday which will take up other pending nominations. that will pretty much clear our docket of nominations. last night the president kept a commitment that he made to the american people 18 months ago at west point. because of the gains made in afghanistan in the intervening months, i believe it was from a position of strength that the president was able to lay out the next phase of our strategy. the transition to afghan control that begins by withdrawing a significant number of our troops between next month and september of 2012. p the surge to reao tg testament to the

sacrifices of our men and women in uniform and their civilian counterparts. every time i have visited the region from kabul to catamarca, i am impressed by the commitment and ability of our troops. some are on their fourth or fifth combat tour. the others -- they have remained steadfast in performing their duty with honor and professionalism. i know you will agree that it is their efforts that help help to bring us to this historic transition point. -- that have helped to bring us to this important transition point. it is important to acknowledge, notwithstanding the criticisms i hear from both the right and left, if you really stop and think about it, we have met our major goals in afghanistan as articulated by the president. we significantly disrupted al qaeda and dramatically reduced its presence in the country and the job, though not finished, we

have come to the point where this mission can transition. bin laden's death last month was the capstone of the president's original objective. our strategy has given the afghans the opportunity to build and defend their own country, something, incidentally, they have done for centuries without our help. senator lugar and i hope that over these last months this can trinity -- this committee has contributed to the public dialogue. we have held 20 hearing since 2009 and helped to focus attention on critical issues and during that process, it is fair to say that all the members of the committee have developed some conclusions that we believe will continue to have an impact on the remaining challenges. obviously, the remaining challenges are significant.

the most important one as i have said many times, i think the secretary agrees, is pakistan. where we have a complicated relationship. we have to work with the pakistanis where our interests converge and we have to understand where they do not converge. we have to work to bring those interests together to find a common ground, where even if there are some different goals that we're able to overcome the obstacles. for sure, the pakistanis have reacted strongly to the events of may 2. they have clamped down on vases, making it difficult for military intelligence and civilian personnel to do their jobs although was now secretary of defense leon panetta's recent visit there, there has been some movement, but reducing our footprint in afghanistan coupled

with the kind of high-level diplomacy that secretary clinton engaged in last month it should open the door for new talks

reconciliation [no audio] to shutting down extremist " actions. number of troops will resolve the challenge should open the door for new talks on a range of topics from it. every military leader has said there is no military solution. now is the time -- all the neighbors to try the political solution. we can do this in a vacuum. to talk with the taliban will have to pursue strategies with russia and china. we need to listen closely and work with them .

>> the nominations are approved unanimously and will be sent to the floor hopefully for expeditious disposition. i thank my colleagues for helping to make that happen quickly. senator lugar. >> i congratulate the nominees and look forward to their service and i join the chairman in welcoming you once again. the foreign relations committee is undertaking a series of hearings on afghanistan and pakistan during the last two months that have eliminated many issues. we look forward to the first assessment of the situation in those countries and plans for moving forward. much of the discussion about u.s. policy in the region has been focused on the specific question of how many troops should be withdrawn from afghanistan. i believe troop withdrawals are warranted at this stage but our

policy in afghanistan -- the president should put forward a plan for -- that includes a more narrow definition of success in afghanistan. based on u.s. while interests. and a sober analysis of what it is possible to achieve. it should eliminate ambiguity and make clear we're not engaged in nation building. it includes a metric of what metrics should be. namely to prevent the afghanistan to be used from a terrorist -- as a terrorist safe haven. those activities are not intrinsic to the counterinsurgency. it is essential that afghanistan

be viewed in the broader strategic context. if we determined to reapportion our world wide military and diplomatic assets, without reference to where they are now, no rational review would commit nearly 100,000 troops and $100 billion a year to afghanistan. an additional 31,000 troops are in the region supporting afghanistan operations. the country does not hold that level of strategic value in my judgment for us, especially at a time when our nation is confronting a debt crisis and our armed forces are strained by repeated combat deployment. administration officials have testified that yemen is the most likely source of a terrorist attack against american interests in the short term. we know that al qaeda has far more significant presence in pakistan than in afghanistan.

to the extent that our purpose in afghanistan is to confront the global terrorist threat, we should be refocusing resources on pakistan, yemen, somalia, parts of north africa, and other locations. now the political objects nor in russia should compel us to persist in -- nor in russia should come palace to persist. the military and civilian elements have noticed progress. it in many parts of afghanistan, measuring success has limited meaning. we will make some progress when we are spending over $100 billion a year. the question is whether we have a sufficient strategy for protecting appeare.

the pakistan side of the border has a different dynamic. they worry about state collapsed. the safety of the pakistani nuclear arsenal. pakistan's intersection with other states in the region. it may set a strategically vital country. the question is how the united states navigates the contradictions inherent.

>> to look for to get dialogue. >> this is a pleasure to be back here. as the president said last night, and the united states is meeting the goals he set for our three track strategy in my afghanistan and pakistan. the surge has a ramped up pressure on al qaeda and insurgents. the civilian surge has bolstered the government's, and economies, and civil societies, and undercut the insurgency. the diplomatic surge will chart a more secure future.

all three surge are a part of the vision for a transition that they endorsed last december. as he said, they take responsibility for their own future. today i want to amplify on the president's statement and update your statements. we have to stay focused. we have to put al qaeda on a path to defeat. last night, the president explained his forces next month.

i leave it to my colleagues from the defense department to discuss the specifics. but the bottom line is that we have broken the momentum. we do began distraught down from a position of strength. with respect to the civilian surge, we appreciate the attention this committee has devoted to its. improving governance and creating opportunity and supporting civil society is by tills is solidifying our military gains and advancing -- is important to solidifying our military gains and advancing our goals. we have expanded our present six fall.

they are focused on key ministries and sectors. there should be no doubt about the results. under the talmudic a ban, only 900,000 boys and no girls were enrolled in school. by 2010, a 7.1 million students were enrolled. 40% of them more girls. they have been trained and equipped with other techniques. afghan women have used more than 100,000 micro finance loans. infant mortality is down 22%. what do these numbers and others that i could quote tell us? despite the many challenges,

life is better for most afghans. they and many failings to be sure. it is every research analysis we are privy to. they see progress in their streets and schools, their fields. we remain committed to fighting corruption and strengthening the role of law and a very challenging environment. it was not nor was it ever designed to solve the problems. considering the obstacles we face, we are and should be encouraged by what we have accomplished. most important, and the civilian surge helped advance our

military and political advances. let me offer one example. it provides stats for hundreds of workers. insurgents demanded abandoned this. it frustrated the insurgents to tax the project. they continued to interfere. he will become our enemy. the insurgents backed down. we have reached the height. any effort of this size and scope will face considerable logistical challenges.

they will strengthen oversight improve effectiveness. we are effectiveness. the effect of this on the ground continue to be nothing short of extraordinary. looking ahead as they proceed, we are shifting our effort from short turn projects, largely as part of the military strategy to longer term sustainable development. it focuses on spurring growth. the third surge is a diplomatic one. it is in support this. it aims to shatter the alliance between the taliban and al qaeda. to help produce more stability.

it will provide a longer-term framework for bilateral cooperation. it will bolster afghan and regional confidence. they will not become a safe haven for terrorists and air arena for the interests. as the president said, this will insure we can continue targeting terrorists. they must meet clear lines. they must renounce violence. they must abandon al qaeda. they must abide by the constitution of afghanistan. these are the necessary outcomes of any negotiation.

they are stepping up their efforts even as a fall begins. let me _ something. not because of my personal feelings. including women and civil society in this process, it is not just the right thing to do. it is the smart is strategic thing to do. any potential for peace will be subverted if women or ethnic minorities are marginalize our silence.

they have a broader range of contacts at many levels across from the region that we are leveraging to support. it includes very pulmonary opry. the combination of military pressure an opportunity. with osama bin laden dead end them under pressure, the choice facing the taliban is clear. the part of afghanistan's future or face unrelenting default. they cannot escape this choice. marc grossman is leading an effort to build support for political solutions. we have met twice and will convene against next week.

we are engaging the region around a common region. it is free of al qaeda. we believe we have made progress with all of the neighbors including india, russia, and their run. just this past friday, led the security council voted unanimously to support reconciliation by splitting the sanctions. it underscores that the door is open for the insurgents to abandon the terrorists and choose a different path. we welcome these steps. the key priorities and the linchpin of this entire effort. it is closing the gap between kabul and islamabad. pakistan must be part of this process. earlier, they launched a joint

peace commission and held talks at the highest levels. did very significant was the full implementation on june 12 of the transit trade agreement which will create new economic opportunity on both sides. it lays the foundation for a broader region. this started being negotiated in the early 1960's. it took decades, including great heroic efforts by the late richard holbrooke. >> i recently visited pakistan. the united states has clear expectations for this relationship. as president obama said last night, the united states will never tolerate a safe haven for

those of americans. we are looking to pakistan to take concrete actions on the goals we share. defeating violent extremism has taken some money innocent ones. it secures a stable and democratic and prosperous future. these are tough questions to ask of the pakistani. there are many causes for frustration. we should not overlook the positive steps of recent weeks. counter-terrorism corp. continues. several key extremists have been killed or captured. as i told the pakistani, america cannot and should not try to solve pakistan's problems. they have to eventually do that themselves. we cannot walk away from this relationship and ignore the consequences.

pakistan is a nuclear arms states sitting at the crossroads of a strategic region. we have seen this movie before. we have seen the cost of disengaging from the region. this has stressed. if it is important, we have the resources that implement our strategy. the state department is following the pentagon's model in treating a special emergency fund. it separates normal operating costs from wartime expenses. i will hasten to say we are painfully aware of today's fiscal reality. it is tempting for some to peel off the diplomatic element of our strategy.

they make fewer headlines. know much about them. three surges work hand-in-hand. economics -- you cannot limit 1 and expect the other two to succeed. old simile, i believe we are saving money -- alternately, i believe we are saving money and lives. an entire year of one's afghanistan bring them to the same amounts of military operations.

it is importantly as the tough questions. i look forward to improving the strategy. we work together to implement it. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. it has some questions. lemme follow it up a little bit. yesterday, there was a loophole. it found that most of the pakistani is considered us an enemy. a lot of americans backed about that. it is a positive view of the united states. they think we are doing this. balancing that, it is

interesting that only 12% have a positive view. in many ways, the afghanistan war said this about the efforts. in many ways, and the afghanistan war is a sideshow to the main event that is next door. pakistan is 170 million people. afghanistan is 31 million people. it has doubled according to public unclassified ones.

attacks against neighbors as well as against america and europe. it is judged against countless numbers of former fighters. it seems that pakistan has received less attention in the regular reviews compared to afghanistan. more than $120 billion goes to afghanistan. notwithstanding, edges

extraordinary -- it is with the extraordinary capacity needs on several different levels. given the conversations you have there, you are aware of the sensitivity of them to this disparity. i wonder if he would share with us how you came away from your most recent meetings and what you see as a more effective way. it is fair to say every member is asking questions about this relationship. appropriations people are. the trouble. -- the preparations are at the trouble. >> the dilemma we face is one member.

they sent the president of pakistan to mount vernon to the present day. we have had a difficult challenge and staying on any single course with the pakistani. as you remember very well, because of their nuclear program, congress passed the amendment. we cut off all contact with them.

he would say that you do not know what he wanted us. they do not know what to expect from you. we cannot count on me. i would argue that it is only part of the story. clearly, it will be viewed the

personal interests. i think we have to recognize that the overriding strategic framework in which pakistan thinks of itself is its relationship with india. every time we make a move toward improving our relationship with india, which started with a great commitment. what we tried to do from the beginning of the president's term was to look at afghanistan/pakistan and the entire region as a whole.

they are advocating large box. we urge them to get into the fight. did they did.

it is hard to figure out when they fill their survive well as at risk. they measure factors coming in at once. not to make any excuses for their behavior, it is tried to put it in some explanatory context. this is a very strategic situation for us. we will make it clear the expectations. they will demand more from them.

the final point i would make it is that i see a our involvement in afghanistan as a vital to national security interest. i see it as part of our relationship with pakistan. there would be perfectly happy if we picked up and left tomorrow. what we get for it. what would they do with that. i think the answers mean that the president's approach. >> this is an area that we need to be very intense.

>> to have breakfast. he can make the case better than i could. i'm glad you took the time to answer. i appreciate that. i am reminded that the secretary needs to be at the white house for a debrief there at about 12:15. if the colleagues are ok, roby would probably have to limit the question.

>> you have richard holbrooke in the special embassador real dramatic role. they undertake it. be on that comment. beyond that, he suggested and you touched upon it that afghanistan is a much larger and diplomatic pattern and said their relationships. -- and set of relationships. you and the president might very well be able to pull together. the united states, afghanistan,

and pakistan could be pulled into a congress of sort but include also india. they also have an interest in us. at the end of the day, the united states will have a residual force. this would be irritating. for a variety of regions, might find that to be fortuitous. as it stands, our advantage would come from enhancing our relations with all of the above. they were beyond afghanistan

/pakistan. there are nuclear powers. there are a variety of regions. i mentioned saudia arabia. i mention this because as you could give a different figure, my understanding is that with pakistanis, they are more difficult. only about 60% of our supplies for afghanistan can get across pakistan as opposed to maybe 90% from a few weeks ago. we have become more reliant upon russia as a place where we can transport businesses and services to afghanistan. this is a regional problem.

it will have that broad diplomatic solution. the fighting is still going on. we still have a lot of work to do. she mentioned the three surges. i'm not arguing against that. i would suggest that probably the resources from the nations are not unlimited in this respect. as you start going toward their own budget problems, pakistan has ongoing relations. we need to stress this regional diplomacy idea. do you have any thoughts beyond that? >> i agree. i think the congress of vienna is an interesting historical example.

there was a pact made among regional powers that left the country's from a free zone. certainly if we get to that, they would not recommence with the been in -- the gain. we have formed a kind of group that the ambassador has recommended. they have met twice. they will meet again. they have been working very hard over the last 2.5 years to create this regional approach toward solving the problems in afghanistan. i think the countries you named are all at the table.

the most recent meeting of all the countries have an interest. it was actually hosted in saudia arabia. they are bringing these to the broad negotiations. how old they are involved and what they are willing to do, we do not obviously know. they have a lot of worries about what goes on. you are well aware that one of the issues we are watching for is how old the people and others respond to the diplomatic outreach. i was in very few months ago. the government is very worried

about what happens. there are lots of players that can act independently or in concert with one another. you are bright. the only way we are going to get a political resolution is through this kind of diplomatic outreach. i hope that everybody in understands that you do not end wars by talking only to people with whom you agree or who are good actors. you are talking with people whose interests is very much opposite of years. what he described as what we are in the middle of doing on. >> thank you so much. i predicted he will be a secretary of state.

i.t. think you are. we are proud of you. we thank you -- i think you are. we are proud of you. we've thank you. yet given as i have. everyone at this table who has spent the night his state senate after we were attacked offered to go to war to get osama bin laden and decimate al qaeda. they are finally getting osama bin laden. that was a huge movement. according to leon panetta, we are down to about 50. as i but that it, before i go to

war, that is the most difficult boavote. we did what we said we wanted to do. i will ask this. we have trained security forces. i had to break it down. we have spent $30 billion

training them. that in the chairman of the committee. he served on it. we are desperately seeking $60 billion. he said, oh my goodness. it is my understanding. i need 6 billion per year to keep people working. this issue is really a matter of not only the lives of these soldiers, but everything else. on many occasions, and this is a sovereign nation. they stress this. it is growing every day.

he put it all together. you wonder why they are looking at 2014. i was hopeful that the surge -- i was hopeful that it could be moved out this year. having said that, i respect the president. i know he had everyone telling them. we have to be humble. i think it is important to state that i think this has led to 70,000 troops. the second question has to do

with the women. they had the privilege of meeting with the delegation. you know how courageous they are. they risked everything to come here. we remember the days. the women suffered. i was so proud. i so what do you need. they do not need to see that reconciliation. how many states do you have? the said nine states out of 70. i told him i would do everything in my power including rights

legislation to put them through the table. the people that got hurt the most were there. they have been at the table. it is just not right. what are we doing to push forward. >> bursts on the troop withdrawal, i think as the president explain last night, the surge that he announced in december of 20009 was intended to provide additional military support for the troops we yardy had there. and to it -- we already have there and to accelerate certain aspects of the mission.

this had been languishing. they have now quite impressed them on the ground. it is a bit of a misnomer to say that we can do this. we talk about targets. we have been going after tell their leaders. we have been using the extra troops to hold the territory that was taken back. what they will do for the remaining time they are there is they will be continuing

training periods they will continue entering the afghans who will be taking the lead responsibilities. the will continue in combat to some extent. it is the assessment of the president. it is the right pace of withdrawals. they are on a downward trajectory and military spending because of the drawdown now in afghanistan. the defense department will be many.ing million m the way this has been laid out along with our allies, the decision at lisbon was agreed to unanimously by everybody.

it is the right way to proceed. there will be continuing missions that will be important as we transition. with respect to the women, i totally share this in view. this is among some of the most courageous people in the world. some of them withstood the horrific treatment during the taliban. they never lost their spirits. the cap providing health care. i think it -- the cat providing health care. it is important that they have more seats at the table. if you look at the people, they have to have some stake in the outcome. they are a big concern to the

afghan government in to us. we know that they will be embodied. if women are not part of the peace making, it will not keep to the same extent that it would have. please call that an american and african complex. we will see it in afghanistan. it is not only that we admire them that they will have a place at the table. it is because they have to be part of making a lasting resolution. >> thank you. as thank you for years service. -- i thank you for many years of service. be it is created and

necessarily. as usual, your transparency is disarming. al gore's the conversation happening at another time. i appreciate -- i look forward to that conversation happening at another time. i appreciate it. >> this was a very open and candid discussion within the national security team. they presented their own and use. it will not surprise you that they've raised across the spectrum about what should or should not be down. i think that the president with his decision has hit the mark. he has answered what is a very

legitimate concern. he had domestic needs. at the same time, we have made a difference. it is not easy. he made the right decision. >> i do not want to be rude. the nature of this, they were concerned. i think what you said reached about an energy about what you said about continuing with insert -- the dinwiddies said about continuing with insurgent troops. >> every night we have been making special operators. they go out.

we are targeting people in a tick counter -- in a counter- terrorism effort. we will do both. >> the navy seals that we were proud of, you are now standing by. it is an old term. they are doing the kinds of things. you are comfortable with continuing the nation-building. it is taking place. >> i am comfortable with our continuing to interact with and support afghan leadership at all levels.

our assessment is that 75% of the governors that have been appointed in are actually performing well. parted the reason we think they are performing well is that they have been mentored. i know nation-building lightly raises a lot of questions for people. that is not what we think they are doing. it is in our interest. it gives them a stake in the kind of future we are building. >> we end up with a country because of this. sunday is a very good.

it is a supplicant. they can never do with that u.s. involvement. i see that as what we are doing there. the mid to the last point. he has been there. our reasons have continued to a ball. this because we are there. because of the partnership, they one of u.s. as a reliable partner. we created this partnership.

one of the reasons we continue to be there the way that we have is we did not want to stabilize pakistan by leaving behind a destabilized afghanistan. there is no pakistani voice. it is not a country that speaks with one of boyce. it is ruled by desperate entities. many of the leaders really do not want to see the stabilized afghanistan. pakistan would assume we leave afghanistan immediately.

this is something i'm not criticizing. everyone has had trouble with afghanistan. he wants to reconcile that with me, -- if you want to reconcile that with me. >> i want to go back to the future. i do not think it would affect the strategic interests. it wantsit means that a regime in kabul. it once a border that is not going to challenge the interests. it is focused on having the posh tune population on both sides

not coming together in any way that the ins is lamas bob. they have a certain amount of instability. in islamabad. there is certain amount of instability. india and afghanistan have a historical affinity. they have supported elements within afghanistan. if pakistan could be assured, they are subservient. they would be fine with that. the indians will not sit around and accept that. the others will not sit around and except that. part of what we have been doing

is that it is strong enough to defend itself against all of them. without falling back into civil war. particularly the northern alliance consistency fills the air threatened by pakistan. -- feels threatened by pakistan. it will not wind up that way in of absence ia some kind political resolution. they defend themselves going forward. you were right. this is a route excuse. i'm sure if you do hear different things.

i do not think that they are necessarily contradictory. i think they are all parts of what is an incredibly complex situation. it is within the inches to be able to defend itself again both overt and covert challenges. finally, i think it is important for us to maybe take a step back and look at the other countries they have made investments in. there were differing historical reasons. you look at the decades of our investment in south korea. you look at the cruise co --

coups that took place. you look at the thousands of troops. this is a vibrant democracy. it is a very strong economy. can we the back and say we could have left in 1967. we will let them fend for themselves. they were in a dangerous neighborhood. it has been an american strategy to withstand the test of time. it is not a comparable situation. looking at historical examples to see where american investments persevere is important. >> i do not want to diminish the amount of time we are able to

get to these answers. i do have to know that we have about nine senators left. it takes is into the secretaries white house briefing time. most of the times have been more around 10 minutes. >> that is my fault. >> is important to get these. i regret we have the back and carriend. i think you are an extraordinary secretary of state. this is a momentous time in history. they are taking place in different parts of the world.

this is not this date of concern is that i have. where would we send the sons and daughters of america. i want to express those concerns that i have. we went into afghanistan for a very clear reasons. the reason i supported in the house. these are the perpetrators. these are the number of citizens that he lost. this is where osama bin laden was at the time. >> it is less than 100 fighters. i look at this $10 billion a month in a counterinsurgency

effort to prop up a government that i believe is correct. -- cropped -- corrupt. wood has spent about $30 billion to prop up and to change -- we would have spent about $30 billion to prop up and obtain this. we have spent $19 billion in development assistance. it has come under criticism by a staff report of this committee. listen to president karzai talk to about a force. we are sitting on $1 trillion of mineral deposits.

they feel its own prosperity. i say to myself and not withstanding that i appreciate where he started last night. we did not seem to be transitioning out in a way that really deals with the security interests of the united states. we would spend $120 billion. then i turned to pakistan. i just got an answer today from a letter we had seen you. we are concerned, especially after we see osama bin laden's capture.

i look at that in the context of the assistance. pakistan is now the third largest recipient of u.s. security systems. it is 140 increase since 2007. i am concerned that someone knew that bin laden was there. i look at the concerns of pakistan getting intelligence that we supposedly gave them about insurgent bomb factories in tribal regions that were leaked and the facilities were abandoned before military strikes to take place. i wonder when i see the pakastani intelligence service

are resting pakastani said that gave in a boat that led to are finding of bin laden. $2.70 billion of u.s. taxpayer money. do we not see the need to alter in some direction both in terms of the civil development assistance and our security assistance in a way that reflects the fiduciary responsibility that we have to the taxpayers in our country, that we will have a much better result? >> senator, i read the speech you gave recently. i think it was on the floor. you had echoed some of the main concerns today. i can only tell you that those concerns are ones that we take very seriously. with respect specifically to bin laden, we looked very hard and we have scrubbed all the

intelligence that we have. certainly, in a classified session, we can go into greater detail. but the conclusion ambassador grossman debut in the letter is the one we have reached. we did not start out there. we were not sure what we would bind. but we do believe that at the highest levels, however, i have said and i know other members of the administration have said, we do not in any way will help or absolve those who are at lower levels who may very well have been enablers and protectors. now, the fair question is, where they protecting their higher ups? could be. was it a wink and a nod? maybe so. but in looking at every scrap of information we have, we think at the highest levels of the government were genuinely --

were genuinely surprised. if they had reason to believe he was there, they believed he was certainly in the tribal areas, protected by the taliban whereby the hakani network, but they did not know and we have no reason to believe that they are running some massive deception on us to that point. but your larger concern, senator, or ones that are totally legitimate. all i can tell you is that despite the difficulties that we face in our relationship with pakistan, it is our conclusion that we have to continue to try to pull and push to get it more right than wrong. for example, when it comes to our military aid, which you pointed out is quite significant, we are not prepared to continue providing --

providing that at the pace we were providing it unless and until we see certain steps taken. we are trying to play this orchestra as best we can where we look in one direction and say to those we think are largely responsible for the difficulties we know that exist within pakistan -- you cannot continue doing that. but on the other hand, we have a democratically elected government which has made some courageous decisions despite the challenges. they had made some courageous economic decisions. they have made some courageous civil decisions in terms of pushing the military to go after the taliban. in my very emotional meeting with the president, he basically said al qaeda was in league with the people who killed his wife. "i would have never turned a blind eye if i had known

anything." is a strong democratic government? no, but it is a step in the right direction. i give back to historical precedents. we have been there before. we have supported governments and countries that drove us crazy over a long period of time because they did not grasp what we thought was necessary for democratic institution building and will old law. some of them have worked out well over time, but it took a lot of patience. >> i look forward to following up with you on afghanistan. >> i would like to do that. >> thank you, senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary clinton, thank you for coming today. i think everyone here is expressing frustration. when i first came here and look at all this, i was struck by what a -- skewed this is.

perhaps eight rybinsk q. but you ik's kubicr -- rubki' you cannot result. it is very difficult to explain our objectives. for one reason, it has been changing. we are becoming more realistic. i noticed what has crept into our dialogue has been able never be perfect. thank goodness we finally recognize that. that clearly is a fact of life. the frustration with the two governments in both countries is overwhelming. we started in afghanistan with motives, as everyone said, that were great. we always hear people talk about winning in afghanistan. we won a long time ago. our objective there was debate al qaeda. references have been made that there are less than 100 left of them in the country.

we are left fighting the taliban, who will fight us for centuries if we are so inclined we have to find a way to articulate what the objective is and then move on. it is my question that i would like you to focus on -- please do not take this as being argumentative or anything in that regard. this is very pragmatic. when we leave afghanistan, and we will at some point in time, we will be left with the karzai government, i suppose. -- i suppose, and a military and security forces that should pull all of this together. one of the problems -- one of the problems i have is from a purely pragmatic standpoint, just the salaries for those

security people. the gross national product of the country. as i understand it by multiples -- how is this going to work? clearly there has to be security forces. there is no possible way karzai can hold on or whoever is in his success for. there is no way you can keep a fragmented country like this together without very substantial payments to its security forces. i just do not see how that is possible brigid's -- how that is possible. we hear talk about their natural resources. they rely on the pop beat for their income. from a pragmatic basis, what is your vision of hell they are going to keep enough security forces paid and on the ground to hold this whole thing together? >> i think it is a fair question, senator. i answer it with the following points. first of all, you are right that

they are going to have to have a security force to protect the country. that is what we have been trying to train. it is not only the united states. we have a number of partners that have been contributing to the training and the paving of the security forces. the formal afghan military and afghan police forces will be a continuing source of assistance provided by a number of countries. it will be something that is a lot cheaper than what we are doing now. it is going to be essentially continuing to try to maintain a security presence there, but there is a trust fund for paying the security forces. countries like japan but do not have any military grounds have

contributed. that is one of the issues we are going to be negotiating. secondly, a lot of the security is going to be provided by local militias, local police. general petraeus has invested a lot of effort in helping create what are essentially village patrols so that people will be trained in arms to protect themselves, not connected to the national military or police force. we think that is a very good line of defense. that does not cost us anything. people themselves picked that up. thirdly, we do think that this is an opportunity for afghanistan to find out some of its own security needs. the reference to the mineral wealth and some other sources. we are discussing that right now with the afghan government. at the present time, president

karzai has said he will not stay in office, which we think is the appropriate decision. he will leave when his term is up. so there will be a great effort made to ensure that there is a free and fair election. assuming there can be such an election, a lot of this responsibility will fall to ever succeeds him. we will continue to support afghanistan and its security, but we are going to be doing it on the condition-based analysis. >> i think that is probably the best answer and i really appreciate that. i would urge someone to sit down with a pad and pencil and come up with some specific numbers. the frustration here is obvious. the numbers i have seen, at the estimates i have seen are just staggering. i would like to see someone do that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> secretary clinton, i think

that there is total agreement on this committee on how proud we are the represent our nation globally and you give great credibility to the position of secretary of state. we thank you for your service. i also want to applaud your efforts working with president obama and secretary gates, understanding the importance of national security being more than just our military, but also including our civilian and diplomacy. these are three tools in our toolbox that need to be deployed in and -- in a coordinated way. then get to the resources for one moment. the amount of resources we are currently spending on the military in afghanistan is draining our capacity as a nation as was pointed out by several members of this committee. if we were using an allocation

today of our greatest risk, i do not think we would be spending as much as we are in afghanistan. you make a very good point about one year of our civilian efforts in afghanistan is equal to 10 years of our military. we would like to free up some of the military funds at a faster pace. that would give you additional tools to be able to use our civilian side to advance our objectives. i think that is one of the concerns we have is the resources. there has been discussion on both sides of the aisle. we understand the deficit. we understand we have to make tough choices on the deficit. but we also have to find a source of bonds to move forward on areas that are important. if we can save money on the military side, part of that could be investment on the military -- on the civilian side, which we think could be used very effectively. that brings me to the question

of accountability. you have addressed that several times in response to questions and also in your statements. i want to get to pakistan for one moment. we have a 12% popularity with the pakastani people. i do not want to overestimate the importance of being popular in the countries that we operate, but i do not think we should underestimate that. we are trying to dance values. there is such a low opinion of the united states, it makes it difficult for our values to have the ability to be effective. i think we need to be concerned about it. i also understand we have the and hughes will issue -- the unusual issue that we are supplying a lot of money to a country where there is clear evidence that there intelligence agency is assisting in finding a terrorist group. that is inconsistent with our law. my question to you is that we

share your vision of a more robust u.s. involvement on the civilian side to do with our national security interest, but we have to have accountability even in countries where we have strategic interests. if we do not, it affects our credibility as a nation. how do we reconcile that? >> senator, a very difficult question to answer. from time to time we do a lot of business around the world with governments that do not meet our values, do not share our interest, but with whom we believe that we have a strategic it's -- strategic insert -- strategic security concerns. it is not easy to explain to people. it is something we are constantly evaluating. there is nothing new about it. it goes back to the founding of our country. but i guess i would say that we do try to marry accountability

with our objectives. we do it in a way that tries to get the attention of the leaders we are working with and try to influence. there is always the tough question, "help for the yugo fnc id in retrospect, many people who know a lot about pakistan say it went too far. at the time it was absolutely clear that we needed to come down with a big hammer of accountability because of the behavior we disapprove of. trying to modulate this to implement and manage expectations and actions is an ongoing part of the diplomatic process. i guess i would just conclude by saying specifically when it comes to pakistan, there is a ledger. on one side of the ledger are a lot of actions that we really disapproval of and find an amicable to our values and even

our interest. all the other side of the ledger there are actions that are very much in line with what we are seeking and want. we are constantly balancing and waiting that. we have made the assessments in this administration that despite the challenges, we have to continue to engage, we have to continue to work with, and we have to continue to influence pakastani behavior. >> i suggest that all of us want to engage pakistan. we're not asking to isolate america from pakistan, but i do think our policies have not been as effective as they need to be in developing the type of partnership in that country that will advance our values and that the popularity issue speaks to whether we have effectively used our civilian efforts in a way that will advance longstanding gains for the united states. thank you, mr. chairman. >> center rubio.

>> could you share with us what general petraeus' recommendation was in regard to the timetable and the numbers? >> senator, i am will not be able to do that. -- i will not be able to do that, but i can tell you that the decision the president made was supported by the national security team. i think it would be totally understandable that a military commander would want as many troops for as long as he could get them, but any military commander with the level of expertise and experience general petraeus has also knows that what he wants is just part of the overall decision matrix. there are other factors at work. at the end of the day, i think

the president made the right decision. you heard from colleagues here. those voices were heard within the national security apparatus. out now. out by the end of the year. then there were those who said let's wait to the end of next year. what the president decided was to get through the night fighting season, which we think should be sufficient. >> the logic behind the september 2012 date for the full surge pullback, what was the logic behind that date? >> i think the logic, as the president explained last night, is that when he announced the surge, he said he would start withdrawing its in july 2011 and that he would try to recover the surge with 10 aperiod -- a period of time it took to put the surge in. in giving the commanders of the

opportunity to stage the with all in the mixed -- in the midst of another fighting season is what persuaded the president that that was the right place for him to be despite having lots of competing opinions coming at him from all sides. i would also add, senator, i think it is important to knnote that when the president became president, there were waiting on his desk a request for additional troops. at the time president obama was inaugurated, there were 30,000 plus american troops, give or take. there was no doubt that our attention has shifted to iraq in the preceding years. in iraq, there had been a negotiated agreement with the iraqi government by our government, the bush administration, as to when our

troops would come out. the president looked at that and exhilarated it to some extent, that basically the framework was there. with afghanistan, there was nothing. there was an open-ended commitment. there was evidence of our losing ground to the taliban. he not only put in the surge, he put in an additional 38,000 troops. i think when all is said and done, we will still have more than twice as many troops as when he took office in january of 2009. >> you disgusted -- you discussed the process for are rotting at this decision. there has to be a strategy to begin to transfer over to the afghan people afghan control. all the other hand, this is a region that has a tribal

leaders and local leaders that sometimes question how committed the u.s. is. i think it is more true with pakistan. you alluded to that with your earlier statements. you describe some of our difficulties in getting pakistan to help us with some things. some of it can be explained by their stated dealt -- stated doubt. how do we are right at a strategy to begin the transition without creating a situation where people are afraid to work with us and think the taliban is going to come back, or pakistan decides they will not work with us because they need to hedge their bets and keep some of these people happy. how was that discussed? >> you're absolutely right. that was a source of a lot of discussion because, clearly, our

goals here is to further our objective of having an afghanistan beckon defend itself and it -- and afghanistan and that can't defend itself. it was our assessment -- that can defend itself. it was our assessment that we are balancing two competing concerns. afghan has to take its responsibility seriously. it has to be prepared to instill in its own people the obligation of self defense and security. the longer they felt they did not have to accept that responsibility, the longer the time line would be pushed out. the lisbon decision of 2014 was the first signal agreed to by the afghans and the president's assessment that we would have to begin to show our resolve to which all in order to get them to face up to their own

responsibilities is the second part of that. at the same time, we believe that there will be some continuing presence in afghanistan following 2014, which is in the process of being negotiated through the strategic partnership declaration, so that there will be an american presence to continue ct operations, to support the afghans when needed, to send a signal to the region that there is not a free shot available here. we think we have tried to balance all these competing concerns. but, historically, this is a region where hedging is an art form. what we are trying to do is say there are the third night -- say to our diplomatic efforts that there will be a resolution where all the players will be watching each other.

pakistan knows that if afghanistan gets too worried by what it is or is not doing, it will turn to india. we know that and yet supported the no. alliance in previous times. there are lots of moving parts appear to try to put together so that everybody is checkmated from hedging what could upset the afghan security profile we're trying to leave them with. >> madam secretary, thank you for your testimony and your extraordinary work, not only on these the people issues, but so many others. let me commend you as well on the work you've done with me and others on focusing the pakastani leadership on the critically important issue that involves the strategies to prevent the killing of our troops by way of i.e.d.s that come from and have

their origin in the ammonium nitrate which is flooding into afghanistan from pakistan. i appreciate your work on that and your reporting back when he raised the issue which the pakastani leadership. i have one basic question. it is a focused question on the certification that you must provide pursuant to the enhanced partnership of pakistan act. let me set forth the predicate for the answer. i am meeting with regard to the certification section 203 -- the certification required by the secretary of state under the direction of the president and the appropriate congressional committee that an important part that pakistan has demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is

making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups. that is for that section ends. the second part -- in defining what that progress is, the following can be taken into consideration -- ceasing support, including any element within the pakastani military or its intelligence agency to extremists or terrorist groups. number two, preventing al qaeda, the taliban, and associated terrorist groups from operating in the territory of pakistan. that is the basis of the certification. i will ask you a fundamental question and even though i know the next certification is not due yet. he made one at the end of 2010. but is it your current assessment that the government of pakistan has met these criteria outlined in section 203

for continued u.s. assistance. >> senator, you are right. i provided congress with a certification on security- related assistance to pakistan in march as required by the bill. i will not be required to make another certification until later when we look back on 2011. i will follow the rules that the law sets forth and try again to balance and await what the -- what they have done and what they have failed to do. e did say after bin laden's death that our closed counter- terrorism cooperation with pakistan did help us in tracking him down over many years. we also have seen some significant actions that have

led to unprecedented additional pressure on al qaeda and the deaths of some top extremists. we will once again be tried to balance this. i do not want to get ahead of myself, but i can assure you that i will do my very best to follow the rules set out in the laws passed by this body. >> i guess what i am trying to get to is even though you do not have a current statutory requirement, just to give people a sense of where we are in that assessment because you are hearing a lot about this topic and the question of accountability and how we justify supporting the pakastani government. i urge you in any way you can in addition to the statutory rt