discuss farming in the u.s. and the future of farming and agriculture. washington journal live up friday at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> last week, secretary of state clinton traveled to islam by to talk to pakistan paltry government about taking more aggressive action against the haqqani network, a militant group that also operates in afghanistan. secretary clinton talked about her trip and outlined u.s. foreign-policy policies. then, a number of u.s. military leaders discuss budget cuts and military readiness. the house passed a measure that would repeal a requirement that the government revert taxes from payments to contractors. that debate is later. although this headline proved

false, dewey's defeat by harry truman was iconic and he continued to impact political history. this week on "the contenders," follow the career of thomas dewey who influenced national politics in the election of dwight eisenhower and richard nixon live from the roosevelt hotel in new york city friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, secretary of state hillary clinton cautioned congress about cutting spending in afghanistan and pakistan. she is also asked about the u.s. withdrawal from iraq. secretary clinton testified before the house foreign affairs committee. this hearing is about two hours and 15 minutes.

>> after recognizing myself and the ranking member for 7 minutes for our opening statements, i will recognize the chairman and the ranking member of the middle east south asian subcommittee for three minutes each for their statements. we will then hear from our witness, the distinguished secretary of state. welcome home and happy belated birthday.

without objection, the witness is -- the witnesses prepared statement will be made a part of the record. members may have five days to insert questions and statements subject to the rules. we are getting started right away because we will have both. we do not like to be interrupted because of the democratic process. madam secretary, welcome to our committee. we are pleased to have you here to assess u.s. policy and progress in afghanistan and pakistan. in 2009, president obama initiated a surge in afghanistan resulting in 90,000 troops there now. the president underscored the fundamental connections between our war in afghanistan and the extremist safe havens in pakistan and defined the role as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al qaeda and its extremist allies. in the review in 2010, the

president noted that ultimately it is the afghans who must secure their country. it will take time to ultimately beat al qaeda. it remains a ruthless and resilience enemy bent on attacking our country. make no mistake -- make no mistake, we will remain at relentless. however, president obama announced the withdrawal of 10,000 u.s. troops from andanistan by this year's with 23,000 to be withdrawn by the date of september 2012. madam secretary, we must ask where are we in achieving the strategic objective outlined by the president? progress in the fight is undeniable, but our gains remain fragile. the u.s. is negotiating with the haqqani network, yet we are attempting to destroy the haqqani network. there have been some unwelcome

developments since the president's announcement four years ago, such as the multiple attack of major leaders in afghanistan. turnover to the afghan national security forces remains a significant challenge in some of the key contested areas. on the counter-narcotics front, the united -- united nations office on drugs and crime said there was an increase in opium cultivation. this leads us to the broader question -- what are the priorities for announcing -- advancing our priorities in afghan and -- afghanistan and pakistan? what additional pressure are we bringing to bear to offset the i iranian influence on afghanistan? the most important long-term aspect of the american relationship with the afghanistan today is through

strategic partnership declarations under negotiation with kabul. the previous administration extensively engaged the congress in a bipartisan manner. we are disappointed that a similar level of outreach, engagement, and transparency on this critical issue has been absent on the current afghanistan negotiation. i am capitalizing on your appearance today, madam secretary, to secure information on the agreement being negotiated. what are our primary components of this negotiation? do you anticipate a total withdrawal like we are about to do in iraq, or will we remain until we train and have a modest counter-terrorism presence? how will it address weaknesses in the political system, such as too much power concentrated in

the presidency and overdependence on foreign aid? what reforms are we requesting to fix these laws? where we insisting on the right to pursue insurgents who threaten us and our interest? are we preserving our technical and operational flexibility? the afghan government must be pushed to make the necessary steps to become a reliable partner to the u.s. over the long term. i know that you know that as well. too much blood has been invested in afghanistan for us to walk away or have a government that threatens american interests. turning to pakistan, our relations continue to suffer. first there was the bitter affair a balding the u.s. embassy worker who shot and killed two pakastani men he thought were robbing him. he was released to u.s. custody. the ultimate disgrace was the discovery of osama bin laden inside pakistan and living

adjacent to a pakastani military felicity -- facility. now we see attacks by islamabad against u.s. targets in afghanistan. we are at a crossroads. we cannot sustain a partnership with islamabad if it continues policies that jeopardize american lives. legislation developed in our committee and carried by the appropriations committee puts tough conditions on u.s. assistance to pakistan. pakistan security establishment must work more closely with us to eliminate al qaeda and cooperate more fully what our goals to help stabilize afghanistan. can the relationship be salvaged? can our strategic objectives in afghanistan and pakistan be brought into better alignment? it is hard to be optimistic. all the options on the table appear deeply unappetizing.

all run the risk of being ineffectual, counterproductive, or both. madam secretary, we look to you to help clarify for us the strategic choices that we, pakistan, and afghanistan face at this profoundly challenging time for the future peace and stability in southeast asia. we are interested in hearing about your recent trip through the region i thank you for appearing before our committee today and i look forward to working with you to advance our national security interest in this increasingly pivotal region. i yield back the balance of my time. >> gracias, madam chairman. before i start my opening statement, i would like to let the committee know that our former colleague passed away on tuesday. he served seven terms in congress, most of that time he

chaired the -- this committee. we will remember his dedication to africa. he also drew up pension legislation against south africa's apartheid government. ronald reagan vetoed that legislation. he retired from congress in 1992. as we all know, he stayed deeply engaged in african affairs serving as president clinton's envoy to africa and president obama's special adviser to that region as well. we not only lost a man who made a difference in public policy, but a friend with a profound mind and an engaging and -- and engaging wit. thank you for calling this important hearing on the administration's strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. i would like to begin by commending secretary clinton for

the -- as a result of your efforts, we were able to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of unimaginable proportions and ultimately create the conditions for the libyan people to oust one of the world pottery most brutal dictators. secretary clinton, you have just returned from a trip to afghanistan and pakistan. this is a good time to explore what remains one of the most important and complex foreign- policy challenges of our time. in 2009 when the obama administration took office, i was impressed by the president's commitment to providing sufficient resources to our military forces, diplomats, and aid workers in afghanistan and continuing our partnership with the civilian partnership. however, as i communicated to you, i am recently deterrent -- concerned about our

deteriorating relationship with islamabad and how that impacts our efforts in afghanistan. pakastani intelligence tip off militants operating i.e.d. factories on pakastani soil, factories that were making bombs to kill u.s. troops. and admiral mullen said the haqqani network is believed to be responsible for a truck bomb that killed 77 american soldiers and a september 13 attack on the u.s. embassy in kabul with "a veritable army of pakistan's i.s.i." this raises questions about pakistan's commitment to work with us to defeat terrorists. this behavior must stop. in 1957, president eisenhower

remarked "if the united states was doing practically nothing for pakistan except in the form of military aid." he voiced concern that the american commitment to pakistan 's military was the worst kind of plan and decision we could have made. it was a terrible error, but we seem hopelessly involved in it. these remains true today. given the current climate, i support the administration's decision to stop assistants to islamabad. we should stop all military aid to as a lullaby to make sure it is meeting its intended purpose. at the same time, it would be a terrible mistake. it is in our long-term interest to support the continued development of pakistan's civil

society and nascent democratic institutions. these are the critical building blocks for a peaceful and prosperous pakistan and, ultimately, a stable afghanistan and south asia. we must continue to find ways to partner with the people of pakistan who have become a casualty of misguided policies pursued by pakistan's military and by civilian leaders unwilling to leave. pakastani are reminded of this every day by constant energy storage is, never ending financial crisis, political turmoil, and rising extremism. the united states cannot solve all of the main problems. the recently completed renovation of the dam, funded by the united states, means that 1 million more pakastanis will have access to electricity. we also take interest in pakistan's private sector, which

will not cost american taxpayers a single dime. madam secretary, i know you have expressed support for this concept. it is critical that any assistance we provide a sustainable and completely transparent both to the pakistanis and the american people who pay for it. this is true not only in pakistan, but all of our international programs. for those who say foreign assistance is something we cannot afford, i say we cannot retreat. we need to modernize and reform our assistance to make it better at serving our national interest. let me touch briefly on the transitional reconciliation in afghanistan. i support the president's decision to withdraw all combat troops by 2014. the strategic partnership declaration, which i look

forward to learning more about, will serve as an important symbol of our long-term commitment and is critical to regional security and a successful transition period while i appreciate the progress being made, i continue to have reservations about efforts to reconcile with the taliban and al qaeda affiliated groups, such as the haqqani network. as much as we want the war to end, i am concerned that allowing these extremist groups to assume leadership positions in the government would threaten the gains we have made on counterterrorism, women's rights, and narcotics. i am skeptical. pakistan remains the spoiler. our general goal is a stable and secure afghanistan, but i think we have a very different definition of stability. ultimately, we will not be successful in afghanistan

militarily or politically unless pakistan plays a constructive role in allowing afghans to determine the future for themselves. madam secretary, how will we succeed in afghanistan as long as pakistan provides sanctuary for afghan insurgents? once again, i thank you for being here today. i look forward to your testimony. i have to say that because a bill of mine is in the transportation subcommittee roundtable today, i have to leave, but i will certainly come back and review your testimony. >> i'd think the gentleman for his opening statement. the chair of the subcommittee on middle east and south asia is recognized. >> thank you for calling this important meeting. although it is not be expressed

topic of our hearing, i would like to say a word on iraq. i am very concerned about the president's recent announcement of a complete withdrawal by the end of the year. fulfilling a campaign promise at the expense of american security interest is neglect and downright irresponsible. it seems painfully clear to me that the iraqi army is not yet ready to defend iraq from the threat posed by its nefarious neighbor to the east. the administration's current policy appears to focus on normalizing our relationship with iraq, but the situation is not normal. i fear that our objective is no longer to ensure iraq is stable, but merely to withdraw our forces by the end of this year in order to meet a political time line. seeing that iraq is secure, stable, and self-reliant, does

not make it so. to borrow a quote from you, madam secretary when you're serving in the other body, requires "a willing suspension of disbelief" to accept that withdrawing troops from iraq's. although i understand that iraq is a sovereign country, i believe there is much more this administration could have done to secure a more realistic troop presence before the end of this year. accordingly, i would like to echo senator lieberman's recent call to open negotiations with iraq. this decision also offers a disturbing insight into the administration's definition of "conditioned based which all." that is the policy in

afghanistan. when asked recently whether not leaving a residual force in iraq, he responded "i think they should have raised those issues with -- when president bush agreed to withdraw troops by the end of this year." is this what we should expect from the obama administration in 2014 if conditions in afghanistan do not justify with paul? i hope you will address exactly what conditions we would like to see before we withdraw and what contingency planning the administration is conducting. should we get to 2014 and discovered the conditions in afghanistan have not progressed as quickly as we hoped they would. as one reporter recently observed, it used to be that american withdrawal was conditioned on success. now it seems we're trawl has become the definition of success. if that is the case, success in

afghanistan will fill a lot like failure. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. chabot. >> hillary rodham clinton has served as the 62nd secretary of state since january 21, 2009, the latest chapter in a four decade career of public service. she has served previously as a united states senator from the state of new york, first lady of the united states and the state of arkansas, and as an attorney and law professor. madam secretary, your full statement will be made part of the record. if you could be so kind to summarize your remarks, we can move directly to the question and answer portion and hope we can get as many members as possible before you have to depart. the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, madam chairmawoman.

i appreciate this opportunity to appear before you. >> i want to start by recognizing the concerns that many of you have about afghanistan and pakistan policy. you and the american people are right to ask questions, but i think it is also important, as the chairwoman alluded to in her opening statement, to recognize the significant results that our policy has already produced. osama bin laden and many of his top the tenants are dead. the threat remains real and urgent, especially from al qaeda affiliates, but the group's senior leadership has been devastated and its ability to conduct operations greatly diminished. many of our successes against al qaeda would not have been possible without our presence in afghanistan, and close cooperation with pakistan. in afghanistan, we still face a difficult fight, but coalition and afghan forces have reversed

the taliban momentum in key areas. afghan security forces have a long way to go, but are taking more responsibility every day. and while the country still faces an enormous challenges from poverty and corruption, our development efforts have bolstered the economy and improved lives. you know the statistics. 10 years ago, fewer than 1 million students enrolled in afghan schools, all of them boys. now several million and 70% of them girls. i offer these brief examples to show that we are making progress toward our goals, and we cannot let up. i will be the first to admit that in working with our afghani and pakistan partners is not always easy. but these relationships are

advancing america's national security interest. walking away from them would undermine those interest. with that as a context, let me report i just completed a report on both countries. i emphasize a three-track strategy of fight, top, and build, pursuing all three tracks at once. they are mutually reinforcing. and the chance for all to read to be successful is greatly increased by strong cooperation from the pakistan and afghan and governments. we briefly discussed each track. first, the fight. coalition and afghan forces have increased pressure on the taliban and other insurgents, including with a new operation in eastern afghanistan launched in recent days. our commanders on the ground are increasingly concerned, as they have been for some time,

that we have to go after the safe haven is across the border in pakistan. i will be quick to add that the pakistanis also have reason to be concerned about a tax coming at them from across the border in afghanistan. in islamabad last week, general dempsey, director patraeus and i delivered a unified message. pakistan must join us in squeezing this network from both sides of the border and closing safe haven. we understand the urgency of the task at hand and we have detailed and frank conversation about the concrete steps both sides need to take. i explained that trying to distinguish between so-called good terrorists and bad terrorist is ultimately self- defeating and dangerous. no one who target civilians of any nationality should be

tolerated or protected. we are not suggesting that pakistan sacrifice its own security, quite the opposite. we respect the sacrifice that pakistan has already made, and it is important for americans to be reminded that over the past decade, more than 5000 pakistani soldiers have been lost, and tens of thousands of pakistani citizens have been killed or injured. that is why we are pursuing a path of shared security that benefits all. the second track is talking. and here, too, we are taking concrete steps with our partners. i reaffirm america's strong support for an inclusive, afghan-led peace process. and we are very clear about the necessary outcomes of any negotiation. insurgents must renounce violence, abandon al qaeda, and abide by the laws and constitution of afghanistan, including its protections for

women and minorities. if insurgents cannot or will not need those red lines, they will face continued and unrelenting assault. and i want to stress, as i did in kabul, that the hard-won rights of women and minorities must be protected. the afghans as strongly believe reconciliation is possible still, and we support that has the best hope for peace and stability in the region. pakistan has a critical role and a big stake in the outcome. we look to them to encourage the taliban and other insurgents to participate in the afghan peace process in good faith, both through inequitable public statements and by public statements. this will be a key focus when i

go to istanbul next week to meet with regional foreign ministers. for our part, we are working on a new government. in 2011, we had three washington-led rounds of discussions with the state department's leading an interagency team, including dod, usaid, and the noc. these discussions resulted in a tax that is about 95% agreed to including democratic institution building, a human rights, and long-term reforms. among other things, we envision establishing and afghanistan- united states bilateral commission and associated implementation mechanism to help our focus remains on what needs to be done during the transition process. ambassador crocker and general

allen are still working through some of the security corp. issues with president karzai. the negotiation is ongoing. although we do not expect this to take the form of a treaty or require advice and consent of the senate, we will consult with you on where we are in this process, and i will ensure that anyone who wishes to get a full briefing will get one, and we will very much welcome your views. we anticipate having a transition that does include security components not only from the united states but also from nato, commitments that were made at lisbon summit. finally, the third track is building. building what? building capacity and opportunity in afghanistan,

pakistan, and across the region. this is part of a clear right strategy rooted in a lesson we have learned over and over again are around the world. lasting security and stability go hand in hand with greater economic opportunity. people need a realistic hope for a better life, better job, a chance to provide for their families. it is critical to our broader efforts that civilian assistance continues in afghanistan and pakistan, and i thank the congressman for raising that. i will also be very clear that we have had to move rapidly and cheaply to strengthen oversight and improve effectiveness, and i will be happy to answer questions about that. early next week, i will be sending you a comprehensive status update on our civilian assistance, detailing our plans to shift from short-term stabilization to long-term development. as the transition proceeds and coalition combat forces leave afghanistan, they need to be realistic hopes for development.

we are achieving agricultural feasibility and greater exploitation in a way that benefits people of natural resources, increasing exports and strengthening the financial sector. i really want to underscore the point that the congressman made, which is really that we want to move from aid to trade. we cannot do that if we cannot get legislation which will lower tariffs on pakistani and afghan products and the enterprise fund, which will not require taxpayer dollars. this is what we did in central and eastern europe, and it was a big help in convincing people that the free market was a way to go. finally, we are pursuing a broader long-term vision for

regional economic integration. it is not just an economic plan. it talks about how we can get these countries that have so many problems with each other to begin cooperating. to that end, i am pleased by the progress that india and pakistan are making on the commercial front and the progress in implementing the transit trade agreement between afghanistan and pakistan. those are our talks, and we are on all of them simultaneously. we believe that the best place we can be in moving forward, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you so much. i will yield myself some time for the question. first to say that i am gravely concerned about the safety of the residents in iraq. many members, including the ranking member and i, have sought the administration pose a commitment to securing their protection, giving the iraqi government's repeated failure to comply with its international human rights obligations to the residents, and in light of president obama's announcements of the

final withdrawal of american troops from iraq, we need to be confident that our administration is being gauged with the government of iraq, the united nations high commission of refugees, and others to ensure the welfare of camp residents and to resolve their long-term security goals. my question deals with my native homeland of cuba, although in recent weeks, i feel the need to carry my papers with me to find out when it is that i actually got to the united states. madam secretary, your administration has remained in opposition to many of the world's tyrants, to your credit, yet, the u.s. continues to engage the cuban regime. in march, you stated that gaddafi should leave power. in june, you said the solid should move out of the way. in july, you stated that assad not indispensable and we have nothing invested in remaining in power. in stark contrast, this administration continues to increase the cuban regime and provide the castro brothers a

live line in the form of increased travel opportunities, supporting their offshore oil drilling aspirations. two weeks ago, undersecretary sherman confirmed that the department had recently met with cuban regime officials to discuss the sad case of alan gross. media reports stated the state department officials were willing to offer concessions such as allowing convicted cuban spies to return to cuba or taking a cue ball off the state sponsor of terrorism list in order to obtain the release of mr. gross. united states should not be negotiating with a state sponsor of terrorism, so i ask you -- why is there a double standard with the castro regime? thank you. >> thank you so much for those questions. let me start on cuba, and then i will go back to camp ashcroft and our concerns about it. our position has been the same

for more than 50 years. we think fidel castro should go. that is the unfortunate commitment that we have put forth over many years. unfortunately, he does not seem to be going anywhere. we do worry greatly about the activities of the cuban government and we have strongly supported the desire of the cuban people to freely determine their own future. it is our view that we should help those who are trying to work toward positive change. so we do support a wide variety of activities on the island. we interact with a broad cross- section of individuals and groups in cuban society, and we provide humanitarian assistance, including food, over-the-counter medicines, and so much more. we think that that is a necessary kind of double

approach. we want democracy for cuba. we have always supported democracy for cuba. we have tried to encourage changes and reform, but at the same time, we are going to keep working with individuals. >> have we met with cuban officials? >> u.s. officials regularly meet with their cuban counterparts, as i know you are aware, because we have a lot of areas of mutual concern. we have drug trafficking. we have immigration. we have all kinds of issues. our main objective for the last two years has to ensure alan gross' unconditional release. at no one has the u.s. government been willing to give unilateral concessions to the castro regime or to ease sanctions as a means to secure his release, but i will _ -- we think it is a gross violation of his human rights and a humanitarian of use that he has

not been returned to his family, and we would like to see that happen as soon as possible. with respect to camp-trough, which we deeply are concerned about, we know that there is an ongoing and very legitimate expression of concern. we have elicited assurances from the government of iraq that it will treat residents humanely, that it will not transfer of residents to a country they may have reason to fear, and we are pushing very hard to get the united nations high commission on refugees to work with the governments. >> ranking member on africa global health and human rights. >> thank you very much. let me commend you, madam secretary, for the outstanding

job you are doing. the recent five-country trip -- they only talk about to debut, but i know you have touched down in three others -- is amazing. your trip to libya where the president had really ask the europeans and data to lead and that we would come in and help out was a very successful strategy. certainly commend the administration for living up to the agreement that president bush made when he said that our troops should be out of iraq at the end of this year. i congratulate our government for living up to that promise to have our troops back in america by the holidays, and the iraqi people want them out. the american people want them out, and i think they should be out. i certainly support what the administration has done in south sudan. i happen to be at the celebration of the new country, but i would hope we would give them all the support for the south sudanese people and that

we continue to watch darfur continue to support the government in somalia. we need to make that work. and also to urge the kenyans to assist, as they are doing now, to try to eradicate terrorists who are coming into kenya and destabilizing the area. i also commend the president for the 100 troops going to the central african republic and to uganda, to train residents in trying to eliminate joseph coney, who this house passed legislation saying we should go out -- bipartisan support -- many of my colleagues on the other side have been just as passionate about the fact that he needs to be eliminated, needs to be captured or taken out because for 25 years, he has wreaked havoc on people

with horrendous acts -- the horrendous acts he has done is just unconscionable. the time is past that he should be taken off the face of this earth. let me just then quickly get what you hear about afghanistan and pakistan. i almost forgot. your strategy in afghanistan has been based on the belief that developing afghanistan's economy and institutions will win over the populations that support the afghan government, even after international forces drawdown. some analysts are concerned that the afghan economy may enter a steep depression as international military involvement in afghanistan winds down over the next few years. what steps has the u.s. taken to make sure that this does not happen? i know you did mention the new central asia/south asia trading

hub that we are trying to create in afghanistan. will there be job training programs and community development so that that can overtake the military action? >> thank you very much, congressman, and banks, as always, for highlighting the important issues and security concerns coming out of africa. i thank you for that, and i join with the congressman in saluting the life of former congressman howard will be, why had the privilege of working with in the 1990's and as secretary of state. with respect to the sustainability of the afghan economy, you are right to raise the issue that when this enormous amount of international money that has been used inside afghanistan begins to diminish, that raises questions about sustainability.

there are three quick answers i would give you. one, we are working to strengthen the capacity of the afghan government itself at both the national and local level. because we think it is important to try to help them understand fundamentals like planning and budgeting. usaid is currently developing a set of measurements about sustainability and applying them to all our programs. second, we are working on necessary reforms right now. a quick example -- the afghan power company -- they have to learn how to effectively collect revenue. they have to learn how to cover the cost of their operations, and we are also working with the ministry of public works and because the international community has built roads, but they have to learn how to maintain them, and that means collecting tolls or other tariffs. we are also working to make

sure that we are coordinating with other donors. there are many big donations that come from infrastructure and training, and we're going to make sure we are all on the same page. >> you so much. mr. burton, the chairman of the subcommittee on europe and eurasia -- thank you so much. >> there's a lot of congressmen and congresswomen concerned that unilateral action being taken by the administration in a military fashion. nobody mourns gaddafi been the scene, but we believe congress should be involved. that was a long duration the cost $3 billion of taxpayer money. i think the administration ought to be aware that there is a lot of concern among democrats

and republicans that unilateral action is being taken without any consultation with congress. let me just talk about a couple of things and ask a question. in 1979, we supported either tacitly or directly, the removal of the shah and the ayatollah imposed sharia law. and people who were sympathetic with the u.s. were lined up and killed. tunisia have said they will have shariah law. the interim government of libya has said the same. one of the things that bothers people is if you are an enemy combatants and defeated, your wife can be raped, and it is all right. i understand there are women

who are being raped right now by the people that won the war because the people who supported gaddafi had wives, and they thought that that was proper punishment. shariah la somethingw that is anathema to most americans. in egypt, the muslim brotherhood has taken on a larger and larger responsibility, and some believe they will end up running the country. higher northern tier of africa may very well be under shariah la as wellw ran. i am concerned and i hope my colleagues are that we could be facing another iran not only in iran but also in libya and tunisia, egypt, and who knows about syria? i would like to know what the administration plans to do to make sure that we do not have a radical government taking over those places. i know you were just there in

libya. i watched on television your remarks. i understand the position of the administration. but i tell you, it worries me, not only from a security standpoint -- we still get almost 1/3 of our energy from that part of the world. if we do not make sure that we did not have radical islamist government in that region, we could have a big problem like we have with iran. with that, i will be happy to hear your comments. then a congressman, i think that you have raised many different aspects of a question that is yet to be answered, and that is -- what does democracy mean? what is the likely outcome of these changes? and we know from our very long history, far back beyond 1979, the revolutions are unpredictable phenomena. sometimes it works out well.

many times, it goes through really messy transitions, and it ends up in a place we certainly do not think represents democracy as we define it. the united states is deeply engaged in and committed to working with these new leaders, many of whom have never been involved in politics before, to make it absolutely clear that there must be a renouncing of violence and military capacity if you are to be part of a democratically elected government, that there needs to be a respect for human rights, for women's rights, for the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion and all the rest that we hold so dear. sitting here today, i think a lot of the leaders are saying the right things, and some are saying things that do give pause to us, but i will assure you that we're going to do all

that we can within our power to basically try to influence outcomes. but the historic winds sweeping the middle east and north africa were not our making. they were in many instances not even predicted. but they are going to have consequences first and foremost for the people of those countries, and then for the rest of the world. >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you, mr. burton. >> i certainly want to personally welcome you, madam secretary, and want to commend you for the outstanding leadership that you have demonstrated not only in your capacity as the president was a chief negotiator, but just about everything that goes on in the world. thank you for the services you have given to our country. i deeply appreciate the

opportunities i have had in dialoguing with you. some of the issues that are important to the needs of our country. just one question -- maybe i am being simplistic in trying to understand a little further about the challenges that are before us as far as pakistan and afghanistan is concerned -- there are 12 million pashtuns afghanistan. seems to me there is really no such thing as an afghan because there are so many different tribes that make up the country of afghanistan. right on the borderline of pakistan, there are 7 million pashtuns funds, we end up with 720,000 taliban that we are going after trying to straighten out ways and, hopefully, in the process of trying to negotiate them, we have 100,000 troops right now in afghanistan, i guess with the

purpose of going after the 27,000 taliban and costing us about $120 billion a year. are we still committed to 2014? given the amount of problems we have faced with this. >> yes, that is the commitment, and it is a mutually agreed upon commitment. that is our commitment, and as you know, we have begun to transition security responsibility to the afghan forces and a number of areas. there will be more announced shortly by the afghan government. we have a plan that our military leadership is implementing to continue to advise and support as afghans take the lead, but to move away

from any kind of ongoing, responsibility by american or nato troops. them in the second question, like the colleague, our chairwoman, i am deeply concerned by the events that transpired in indonesia, where by the indonesian military police forces have arrested hundreds of unarmed harmless civilians, who apparently had a meeting. the congress said that they met, and among those arrested is a dear friend, a traditional leader. this gentleman would not even heard a fly. he is a traditional leader. out of sheer frustration, people have been waiting for the indonesian government for well over 10 years. they were supposed to be given

special autonomy status. the indonesian government has not done anything really to pursue and to promote this. i suspect our frustration, they simply wanted to declare independence. now the indonesian government is accusing them of treason. like i said, in that the gentlemen. he is an elderly person, a traditional leader. would not even heard a fly. i would really appreciate madam secretary if the administration would pursue this earnestly with the indonesian government. i realize this is an internal matter, but it does have a lot of serious international implications in terms of military forces and how the indonesian government is securing the spirit i wanted to ask for your assistance in working together to make sure

that the traditional leader and others who have been arrested are properly given their due process of law. >> congressman, we will certainly follow up on that and consult with you about it. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you. >> mr. turner is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, madam secretary. i recently returned from afghanistan and met with military and state people. there is a contrast between the optimism, at least that the military expressed, in achieving their goal in the next 30 months. which i think, minimally, is to thwart base of operations. state department seemed less optimistic in establishing a

legal system and a rule of law, and i would be interested in hearing what you think of this, whether the cultural divide between what we expect from the afghanis and what is really practical that can be closed within at least a reasonable time. certainly, 30 months is going to be very difficult. thank you. >> thank you very much, congressman, and thank you for going on that trip. i think it is important, and i hope you agree to see these situations firsthand and talk with people, so we appreciate your trick. -- trip.

i think that the civilian presence in afghanistan, which has been tripled in the last two years in response to what were clear deficiencies of attention in the prior years has made a lot of progress, but it is a complicated undertaking. i think that those with whom you spoke were being very candid with you, that it is something that is quite challenging. as i said in the beginning, we have made a lot of progress. we think that progress has made a difference. but you have got to remember that afghans have had a lot of experience fighting, but not a lot of experience in putting together what we consider a modern government, and certainly, very little experience in what we're hoping to see the move toward, which is a sustainable democratic government. the progress is challenging,

but it is continuing, and that is why it is important that we negotiate this strategic partnership documents so we have an ongoing relationship. there is no sensible way to compare any two nations because they are each unique, but we do have some experience. after the fall of the soviet union, the people living in those totalitarian states have little or no experience unless they were quite elderly, in what a functioning democratic government even look like, what a trade union look like, what kinds of human rights should be expected. i think it is quite an accomplishment for the people of those countries over the last 20-plus years to have made the progress that they have made. we are starting on a very different level in afghanistan. there is no real experience. they went from a monarchy that

was a very loosely governing presence in much of the country to a succession, first invasion by the soviet union, and the installation of a puppet regime, to the warlord-ism.. this is a country that has been through so much. i would add that even though there are different ethnic groups or different tribal and clan groups, they do consider themselves afghans. they do not have any doubt in their minds about that, but how they work out the modes of cooperation are still to be determined. we are entering this with, i think, the right dose of humility. i think in the beginning, maybe we did not have enough of that. we did not know how difficult

it would be to make the transition, but we are making progress, and we're going to stay with it. on the civilian side, we will be with it after 2014? >> thank you. >> well played, mr. turner, the junior man on the totem pole. stuck around and got to ask the secretary questions. mr. berman, the old guy, is recognized. [laughter] >> young at heart. madam secretary, the administration has made it clear that the war in afghanistan can only end through a political settlement. you have been quite candid that you would not support any agreement that gives of the hard-won rights of the afghan people. the red line's you previously mentioned a side, given the taliban's brutal history and

that the movement is so ideologically driven, what makes you think, for example, they would either change course on ideology? how we get them to change the way they see the world? >> congressman, i am not sure that all of them would. i am very realistic about that. we have had somewhere in the order of 2500 fighters officially reintegrate. in other words, we have registration of them. we know they have done it. of those, there seems to be both a weariness with fighting and a recognition that the path that the taliban had been on was not the right path. this is part of the testing process that we have to be engaged in. i think that the hard reality is that until we really put it to them in some kind of afghan- led negotiation, nobody will be

able to gauge that. we have followed some intelligence threads, which suggests there is a debate going on about, for example, letting girls go to school, which is something back with seem to me would be absolutely a condition. so i think you are asking the right question. i am just not yet at the stage of how this is unfolding to be able to tell you -- are >> in the stand. i am going to get into an issue that has concerned me. it is a sensitive issue, and i had to miss your testimony because of all politics is local. had to do this issue in the

aviation subcommittee of transportation infrastructure, but last march, in accordance of section 203 of the enhanced partnership with pakistan act, you certify that pakistan was continuing to cooperate with the united states in efforts to dismantle supplier networks, that it has demonstrated a sustained commitment and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups. given at roland's recent statement, the discovery of osama bin laden in pakistan -- given at malmo and's resisted me, -- given admiral mullen's testimony, i wonder if you have regrets about making the certification, and is there anything on your recent trip or anything else that has gone on in the last few weeks that makes you feel optimistic that the purposes we are trying to achieve in the certification requirement we can move forward on?

>> congressman, the certification that i signed with regards to pakistan's role in combating terrorist groups, as you know, was mandated by legislation from the preceding fiscal year. at the time, they beat -- at the time i made the certification, a closely consider the requirements on the statute and consider that on balance, pakistan met the legal threshold. one of the challenges is that there are a number of factors

here. there was no doubt that pakistan had entered the fight against terrorists and have made sacrifices for that fight. there was certainly a continuing intelligence cooperation, particularly focused on the al qaeda operatives, that was proven to be helpful. >> can i ask for an additional minute just to finish the answer to this question? >> no, i am sorry. >> i will be happy to provide you additional written material about that because i know what a serious question is, and i have to do this on an annual basis, and i also would point out that in the last six months, we have had great success in taking out al qaeda leadership, and we have to weigh all of these factors. >> mr. smith is recognized. >> i thank my distinguished chairman for recognizing me. let me ask a couple of questions. 10 years after the taliban, not a single public christian

church remains in afghanistan. he w. christian afghan citizens almost certainly would have lost their lives had there not been a huge intervention, and we were part of that. i know you were part of that. my question would be -- what are we doing to ensure that christians and other minority religions are not subjected to an increase repression? the international u.s. commission said that the situation for christians "worsens" in the last few years. we see the same in pakistan. we know that pakistan's minister for minority affairs was assassinated, a terrible loss. he was opposing the blasphemy laws in pakistan, and we know that other faiths, including the induce -- it has been reported by the human rights commission of pakistan that 20 to 25 hindu girls are abducted and converted to islam every month.

i just chaired a hearing about caustic christian girls, a three-hour hearing focused on -- and the chairman and it was at that hearing. it was living that we now see in egypt that young teenage girls are abducted in their teenage years -- 12, 13, 14 years old, and then they are forced into islam. then they are sold or given in marriage at age 18 to an islamic men. there is even a very aesthetic expression that they are islamisizing the womb all but collision,. of a kidnapping. i have not heard anything from the administration on that. perhaps you want to speak to that. but the deteriorating situation on religious freedom, and that is, as we all know, a fundamental tenet of human rights, and it is getting worse. finally, i want to associate my remarks about the double standard with regard to cuba. fidel castro is really given, i think, a large pass for his egregious human rights abuses

in a way that is similar to what happens with whom gentile -- hu jintao 8 dinner. , i would ask, please pick up the phone and call the foreign minister of china and ask where is he? next week, i am chairing an emergency commission. there have been rumors and reports. we do not know if they are true. he may have been beaten to death. as you recall, he is the blind activist lawyer.

i know you know all about him. he has stood up for women who are being coerced into forced abortions and forced sterilizations. he took on their case, and the iron fist of the chinese dictatorship has ever since years in prison and now under house arrest, and now we hear he may have been beaten to death. we do not know, but please call the foreign minister on that. >> congressman, i share not only your concerns, but your outrage over what we're seeing happening. we will follow up on your request to china. specifically on the question of persecution, obviously, what we are seeing is deeply distressing. it is not only against christians or hindus, but it is also against different sects of muslims. there are discriminated against and persecuted and their adherents brutally treated. this is one of our biggest problems in the world right now. there needs to be a greater acceptance of religious tolerance and in so many places, there is no history of religious tolerance.

i am searching for ways to be effective. one of the things that we have tried very hard to do is to work with a number of countries including muslim majority countries to begin to change the dialogue from something they wanted to call religious defamation, which would be a legal rationale for persecuting people who spoke out about their own religion or criticize someone else's, to a broad acceptance that there needs to be an equation between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. we are trying to many different approaches --

>> thank you, madam secretary, and i thank mr. smith. mr. sherman is recognized. >> thank you for coming before us. i hear you had a busy schedule. and i missed your opening statement for the same reason as the ranking member. all politics is local and our district our coal located. my first question or matter relates to the sind province of pakistan. you may just want to respond for the record because that is not one of the hot issues, but they have been influenced by the sudanese train of islam. they have moderate values harmonious with american ideals, and i would hope that we would do all we could for their role area that is suffering from this year's floods, which are on top of last year's floods, and that you would speak to the pakistanis.

you have so many issues to cover with them, but one is the disappearances of activists in southern pakistan. in this committee room, we dealt with the authorization bill. it may never become law, but it does reflect whatever wisdom there is on this side of the room. and we took a look at the voice of america, which has a budget of $750 million. i believe it was unanimous to direct the voice of america to spend at least $1.5 million of that. we are talking about a small amount of money. broadcasting in the language. further research indicates that the best way to reach the people would be a.m. or medium wave broadcasts originating from the uae. we already broadcast into

pakistan, but the language is spoken by far more people. while it may be the language of preference by islamabad, the language spoken in the homes in southern pakistan is cindy. i do not know if you have a comment on that or would just want to take that under advisement. >> i think that is a very useful suggestion, and i will get back to you for the record. >> many of us saw this at about camp ashraf featuring a 14-year- old girl who faces extermination. we face a tough circumstance in that we are withdrawing from iraq. in the past, there have been -- some would say massacres. at least terrible instances in which tens of people have been killed.

there are press reports that the iraqi officials say not to worry about it too much and after all, the folks are on the u.s. terrorist list. what are we doing to assure that when we leave iraq, we will not see the massacre of 3400 people at can ashraf and how is it going on with the any case should be on the terrorist list? >> on those points in particular, in accordance with the d.c. circuit 2010 ruling, the state department is reviewing the designation. there will be a decision.

it has to be done expeditiously, but thoroughly, and we hope to have such a decision in the future. i would add that the current designation does not pose a bar to the resettlement, and the humanitarian situation in our opinion is also not related to the designation. i think it is also important to recognize that we need to do as much as we can to move as many people out of the camps -- out of the camp before the end of the year, and we are trying to do that. we are working primarily through the united nations and certainly with both the residents of ashraf and the government of iraq to try to put in place a very rapid assessment of individuals, and we have urged the eu and other countries to

favorably consider resettling of any residents granted refugee status because we want to shrink the numbers as best we can. >> thank you, madam secretary. thank you, mr. sherman. >> you can see all that hearing leading off our primetime tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span. on c-span2, kenneth feinberg talks about the implementation of the compensation fund and continues struggles in louisiana. homeland secretary-general of peloton of discusses u.s. immigration policy and enforcement. all of those events tonight on the c-span tv networks. tomorrow on "washington journal," john mica on some of the ways he thinks the joint deficit reduction committee can reduce spending.

then, former democratic national i hope you do as much as you can to make sure that there is another -- not another massacre of people. we have officially requested the state department for information about the massacre. do you intend to comply with that request as we have been told they will? are you backtracking from that

commitment? >> we will provide what information we can to you. >> that sounds like the operative words of how to get out of this. you obviously have the records. are you going to provide them. you have agreed to do it. it would you comply? >> we will. >>, cannot tell you what will be in it. >> there are funds that are frozen right now. how much did we spend to help them to pete this? -- to defeat this? i do not think it'll be inappropriate to free some of

these to put our request in to be repaid for what we did. are we planning anything like that? >> the latest figures i had is about $1 billion. i will wait to see what the final figures are. there are discussions about a number of issues that they have requested help from us. it is a little challenging until they get a government. we are going to look to see how we can best coordinate and organist any kind of reimbursement for certain functions. there has been no government 1.

>> it would be a very defendable and admirable policy in terms of what the people might think. for us to ask for compensation at a time where borrowing money. it is not right for us. if people continue to support the cause of freedom, let me just note. i do not blame the president at all. i am not here to talk about the job you are doing in terms of trying to pull back be terms of

the mission. the call for extending our deployment is the american people that are wary. we cannot keep doing the fighting for someone else when it is up to them to defend themselves. >> thank you. thank you for the spectacular work we are doing. we are concerned about the capability and capacity in corruption. those things have been cited as major obstacles to improve the role of la in afghanistan. how do we ensure the billions of dollars are being used for

the intended purposes. how does it remain to debbie zero big obstacles? -- two big obstacles that how long before they're no longer an obstacle. there is a call for funding which includes economic support funds. you compare it to the two largest loan programs. it totals $574 million. it is a third of the amount we're sending to afghanistan. it is a hard thing for my constituents to understand that we are investing this kind of

resources. it makes it even more difficult. i would love to know how you think we are proceeding on those fronts and when we can expect to do this work on their own. >> thank you very much. i certainly understand and supplies with the legitimate questions of your constituents and americans everywhere. i think that the drawdown of troops represent a very large net savings to the american taxpayers. they withdraw on a very measured basis. our civilian assistance is such a small percentage of the

overall money that is spent. did the vast majority comes from our d.o.d. security forces. we are aware of that. i find it's one of our biggest problems is a cancer in some any problems or people enriching themselves as opposed to making investments that will provide a better future for their own people. the key is to build institutional capacity and create systems. the largest sums of money the

people that worried about corruption. it comes from the enormous amount of money. both of them and absolutely committed. we're promoting the enforcement of anti-corruption laws. we are including judiciary personnel and that. the fbi and others are working with their counterparts. we go after the correction that comes from drug-trafficking. we have improved our accountability. we have worked with our partners to do the same.

we are committed to transparency and accountability and the rule of law. it remains a problem. >> thank you. >> thank you. i will try to make this to the point. last time we were here, we talked about the safety of the camp. later the iraqi soldiers came in. people disagree on how that occurred. right now they are leaving. also, he has made it clear that the camp will close. when we read in iraq, we met with him on the issue.

if the very heated. he refused to let us see it. we had been invited to leave the country. the number one thing he said about the way iraq treated the camp was the u.s. designation. he spent all of this time saying this is the reason they are treated the way our. you have designated them as a foreign terrorist organization. my concern is about the safety. they are dear. some are americans. the others are among the 2000. their permanent residence of the u.s.. what are we doing to make sure they extend the deadline so that

people can do what is necessary through the un to get out of iraq? these are my issues. >> i can assure you that i am personally very focused on trying to make sure that we protect the safety of the residents of the camp. our administration chambly condemns the violence that led to the deaths. 36 residents and died because of april the eighth. we are monitoring this as closely as we can.

we continue to urge the government to show restraint. we have written assurances from the government to treat the residents humanely. to follow the engagements that they have. we are trying to nail down as much as we can to provide some protective screen for the residence. we know they have approached -- pushed them to have even more of a presence to do more and move as many determinations.

we're going to move as expeditiously as possible to a final resolution. >> do you have any time frame on the designation? >> i cannot even moore's pacific. >> i just want to urge you and the administration to make sure that that things did not happen to those there. they put their weapons down. they get asylum status somewhere in the world. the safety is paramount. i would urge that. >> i appreciate that. i appreciate the concerns. i take them very seriously.

>> the chair will recognize herself. if i can ask you to clarify the comments. and also urged the government of pakistan to get tough on the very same network which has directly killed scores of u.s. troops. we were asked -- which is a? crackdown or negotiate? >> we want to build all of the same time. part of the reason is to test whether the organizations have

any willingness to negotiate in good faith. sometimes we hear that they will. there are elements within each that wish to pursue that. other times it is off the table. i think with respect to the network, it illustrates this. there is a major military operation that was held in afghanistan in the past week that rounded up and eliminated more than 100 operatives. they're behind a lot of the attacks spirit and made it clear

that the attack on our embassy was an outrage. the attack on our forward operating base that injured 77 of our soldiers was a similar outrage. in both instances, it was terrible. we avoided having dozens and dozens wounded or killed. >> if i can as a question related to the statement president cars i -- karzai made. god forbid if there ever is a war between pakistan and america. we will side with pakistan. is this something that he told you in your meeting? howdy you interpret this in the broader question?

are they reliable allies? >> we had a very productive meeting. we are making progress on a lot of issues. we are coordinating closely on the fighting the insurgents and trying to test of this reconciliation. when i heard about the comments, we immediately asked the ambassador to go in and find out what it meant. he is one of our most experienced diplomats. he reported that he really believe that what cars i/o -- karzai was talking about was the refuge that pakistan provided to millions of afghans that were seeking safety during the soviet invasion.

it is not about the war that anybody was predicting. address taken out of context and misunderstood. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i get the good luck of being here. i was not here when he raised the question. it was pretty scathing in terms of their attack. our partnership was a lot to be said in terms of what had happened. they were very irritated.

where are we with the charges made by mr. mollen? >> everyone agrees that the ha qqani network has save havens. it gives them a place to direct operations that kill afghans and americans. we agree with what admiral mullen said. there is no solution without pakistan. a stable future without partnerships. if you look at everything that he said in his testimony, he raise serious questions which are government has repeatedly praised publicly and privately about the safe haven. he also said the bilateral relationship was consequential and that we have shared

interests, particularly in the fight against terrorism. it is important to recognize that we're all balancing these two realities. it to be great if we could get rid of one, mainly the safe havens. they believe that they have already paid a grievous price and worry about how they can sustain that. we operate on both of those channels. >> i wanted to raise the question. for over 10 years now, it seems that our countries seem to be bogged down. this seems to be our whole form policy, a centralized. he has reached a visit to asia.

there does seem to be a shift in terms of what exactly are the priorities and how would look at the situation. why are we so bogged down on the issue? we have the rest of the world to deal with. am i wrong looking here? our interest in asia is just as critical and important as we are in other regions of the world. >> you are right. i made a number of trips. i just recently wrote an article. we're making a pivot toward asia. we think it is very important to begin to focus on the challenges and opportunities that asia presents. it is a wonderful visit to one of our pacific islands. this administration certainly is focused on asia.

we are looking at how we maintain our vigilance about terrorism. we cannot forget. it is from the border regions in afghanistan that we were attacked. that was a costly event in our history in terms of dollars spent and lives lost. we did not choose where we had the focus in the last 10 years. we're in a position to make that pivot. there are many that believes that much of the future is going to be written in asia. the united states must be a major player if we expect to maintain our global leadership. this is a very important commitment that i hope is a bipartisan commitment. we feel strongly that it is in

the best interests. >> will no longer have for all to ourselves. >> thank you. >> i have a question for you. the organization that carried out the attacks on a move by -- mumbia --mumbai in recommendation that came out was that we condition our assistance to pakistan their exclusion of l.e.t. in their attempt to shut down the organization.

would you consider making that a condition in terms of the scorecard? >> as you reference, you had intensive discussions with our indian counterparts. i do not want to commit at this time to taking such a path. i think it is important that there be further consideration of all of the implications. every time we meet, we have pressed them on l.e.t. and

the failure to fulfil all of the requirements necessary for prosecutions related to the attacks.by -- my lai 0 >> if we do not drive this, now, it seems that some and their assistants are setting a motion and the type of policies that can lead to conflict. when you look at the mumbai attacks and then find the connection to isi officials who are involved in operation.

when you look at some of the other operations when the find of they were involved in the training, it leads you to question the intention from an intelligence perspective of sending in a force them to face on your territory. this has to be elevated in terms of the discussion with pakistan. it has to be conditional. cannot be the case for they say we are helping with the organization that is targeting the leadership of pakistan.

they have targeting states. i just ask if you think there is a potential for the spinning out of control in terms of the attacks that have been carried out on the capital a major capital centers. >> we worry about that very much. we discussed it in great depth. it is a concern of theirs. it is also concerning to us. there is presence and activities on a regular basis.

i think our policy has been carefully coordinated with the concern. >> perhaps the words will allow us to carry this conversation on. >> thank you. i want to wish you a happy birthday. i want to ask you your comments on this wonderful article. and do not know any comments. -- i do not know if you have any comments. >> i think the country recognizes the wonderful job you are doing.

i want to thank you. some want to speak about something you have. it does impact on other countries. the israeli prime minister has just said that he will negotiate with the palestinians. he was even talking about potential freezes arm expansions of neighborhoods and things like that. the palestinians refused to speak to the israelis. there were still persistent going to the united nations to get a declaration of independence. this congress is trying to

anticipate that we'll have legislation. >> we're deeply focused on toying to move the parties negotiations that will lead to eventual to state outcomes. -- two-state outcomes. we have a process that is currently operating. there were meetings held yesterday. there has been an emphasis on trying to get specific proposals made by both sides on territory and security.

we're pushing very hard for that to occur. you are right. there remain difficulties. we are pursuing these goals their proximity talks. it is not in the interest of both. what we have learned is that a vacuum is not good for israel or the region. our strongpublicly preference that aid not be cut,

are severely aid for the security forces. interest.srael's they publicaly said "do not cut resources to palestinian secu rity." wouldd hope tahat there be a recognition that we do not want unintended consequences. there to be a collapose of the security. >> another has been some criticism about withdrawing from

iraq at the end. we have been successful, using drones and other terrorists. there seems there can be more efficient means been keeping us in afghanistan for ever and ever. i like to hear were your thoughts are. >> there has been an agreement that 2014 is the year. >> thank you. >> in a recent interview with us about negotiations with the insurgents, you spoke about the universal redlines, specifically renouncing violence and ties to al qaeda appear in our these preconditions to talks -- to al

qaeda. are these preconditions to talks? you mentioned the importance of protecting women's rights. i happen to agree with you. can these be reconciled with the implementation of the law which is a stated objective of the insurgents that you are offering a place of in african government? >> there are outcomes which would have to be satisfied. you rarely sit down to negotiate peace with anyone that agreed withy ou. you determine whether the outcomes you seek can be satified. that is our intention.

how yourt of a line of end conflicts like this. in regards to the laws of afghanistan that to protect the rights of women, there is an absolute condition that we have said. to the outcome must be to meet that. i know there is a lot of discussanion and information abt it and what it means and how it is applied. there are different countries with different kinds of applications of what they consider to be thte law that rises out of the koran. ui do not want to judge.

it is our guide. the law of afghanistan that to give respect to it and its appearance to islamic principles is what we are demanding be respected. i think it might be useful to take a look at all the different meanings of that phrase and how it is applied. from time to time i think it is not clear what the implications would be. >> that is one area i would encourage the administration. the presence of the sharia law could potentially devastate the rights of women. i'm sure you are aware of that. recent comments by haqqani

network leaders have suggested we have a tentative bilateral negotiations with them in order to spread them off from the taliban/. the network has said it only if negotiate with the approval and participation. are we prepared to negotiate with ken? under what circumstances would are conditions be what is your assessment of the hot connie -- haqqani network? >> the negotiations that would be part of any afghan led peace process would have to include it. it would have to include some recognition by id which is still

loved by omar. they wish to participate in such a process. that is what i meant the city do not make enemies with their friends. we're pursuing every thread of any kind of interest you might have been voting when i said that the i s i assets to meet with a representative of the -- when the isi said to meet with a representative of the haqqani network. this was done in part because i think they want to be able to move the haqqani network to were some kind of peace negotiation. >> thank you. thank you. limbaugh also congratulate you in the obama administration for the supreme work you have been doing.

this is talking about how we're doing things differently. when i talk to other nations and countries, they're feeling intuitive. it is leadership were where bringing the world back together. we're resolving problems in the world together. we have seen that. this is what libya was really about. the president kept his word. we worked it out. we saved hundreds of thousands of lives. we did in a multilateral way. this is what i think smart power is all about. my first question is, though turkey seems to be a little

removed, i know you're going to turkey. they have asserted themselves as keepers of the peace. my question is, has turki bin otherwise engaged in region? that could be another partner that we need to have in helping us. >> they have been both involved in helpful. i remember my first trip to afghanistan. troops were responsible for the airport. turkey has a great ability to communicate with a lot of the leaders in afghanistan and

elsewhere. it has a history of democracy. now it is an islamic based that ishe aao, thp, leading thte party. the involvement is very helpful to us. >> i think we need to move into a post-cold war conversation. i was wondering if russia has been involved. >> for a long time russia was not particularly involved. there are many years of conflict that ensued.

russia has been helpful. they have cooperated with us. this is our alternative route to get troops and equipment into afghanistan and the pakistani route is unavailable or under pressure. russia is the participating in many of the discussions about the path forward. afghanistan has been a crossroads for conflict. russia wants to see a stable afghanistan. they worry greatly about the heroin trade. that is a domestic problem. we are appreciative of the role there playing. >> as we pull out, and of the agreement in afghanistan, what

is the response? do these organizations still remain as a cohesive command? what role will they be playing in region generally? it is tremendously important. >> the commitment that was made last year at the lisbon/nato summit to remain involved and have an enduring partnership was a very strong signal. nato countries understand that the security of the country. >> thank you. thank you for being here today. i was really very impressed by

your visit. i've had the privilege of visiting pakistan. i was so impressed by their military. we read their to encourage the pakistani military and the u.s. marines for the earthquake recovery several years ago. the organization was professional. the military itself was very positive. i was very pleased. there is a young marine who is of pakistani/american heritage. to see pellagra them working together, with that in mind, the program's behalf, and you believe they're making sufficient progress? by what metrics are you >> thank you for traveling

there. i share your strong endorsement of the positive work we have done between the pakastani military and the united states military in earthquake relief. we are very proud of that. civilian assistance -- we think we are making a difference, but it sometimes gets overwhelmed by all the other activities that go on in our relationship. we will be sending you the latest status report on what we have done next week, i think. we have built roads. we have increased their energy production. the assistance we give to civil society -- i did a town hall meeting in islamabad and several people both publicly and

privately thanked us for the programs that made a difference in their understanding on how to engage with their government. none of this is easy and none of this, frankly, is without challenge, but i believe we have to stay the course on this. >> i have been very encouraged with india that pakistan is developing eight most-favored nation trade status with india. i have been the co-chairman twice on the india caucus. i have a deep interest. the biggest beneficiary of pakistan is india. why do you think this is moving at this time, and what can be done to promote a level of trade and positive contact between india and pakistan? >> i agree with you that the real game changer in the region

is not so much of our bilateral relationship, is the relationship between pakistan and india the more that there can be progress, the more likely there can be even more progress we have, in pakistan today, a leadership, both civilian and military, that wants to see progress with india and we see the same on the indian side. there have been successful visits in the last several months. announcements have been made. they have tried to streamline of visas for businesses to accelerate movement across borders. the most favored nation status is really important. we encourage it. we try to tell both sides how much it will change their relationship. when i was there last summer, i

spoke about a new silk road where goods could go up to cause ex-con. it would go to pakistan and afghanistan. i firmly believe a greater economic integration would revolutionize the economy in pakistan. india is a huge market. pakistan produces things and yet needs, but they do not get into india in any direct and cost- effective way. the more we can do that, the better. >> i share your enthusiasm. all of central asia could benefit so much. i appreciate your enthusiasm. every effort to reduce and eliminate terrorism, which is been a tragedy to india. i yield back the rest of my time. >> thank you, madame chair. welcome back, madam secretary.

i want to get at least one comment and a couple of questions in with my allotted time. first, as you know, with chris smith, my colleague and chairman of the bosnian caucus -- i will take opportunity to make can -- make a comment. i reckon not -- i represent one of the largest bosnian american populations in the u.s. progress is in question. increasing risk to the region from an action. my comment is, we all need a solution, but first we really need a vehicle that can bring together the bosnian people, the leaders, the european union, and u.s. leadership is essential. we hope you -- we can work with you and the appropriate folks in

the department to work for such a vehicle to move the process forward so it does not backslide and create what i think could be a big problem. back on topic here, as you know, i have supported active u.s. engagement around the world. i believe the obama administration has shifted to a policy of smart power and responsible per dissipation. it has been in our great interest. our security interest, our economic interests, and our value around the world. the mission in afghanistan has been in essential in developing that country. also, it engages 80% of the cost with our partners. they are helping to share that burden. to ensure they have the ability to take on a bigger role as america plans to draw down their

troop presence in the future. what effect would the cuts proposed by this committee have on the un's ability to pursue that important work? >> first, we would be delighted to work with you and congressman smith on bosnia. we share your concerns. we would love to consult to you, so i will reach out and set up a time to do that. i think activities in afghanistan are essential to the safety and security of our troops, our civilian employees, and the success of the transition. i wrote to the chair earlier this month that i was deeply concerned that the proposed un reform bill mandates actions that was severely limit u.s. participation in the un and greatly harm our interest. i am focused on first and foremost on hours.

the requirement that the u.s. will hold 50% of its contribution until the un shares to a voluntary funding scheme for most of its programs would undermine our leadership at a time when we really have to be at the forefront. we are being asked to do more with less anyway. we get a lot for our investment because, as you say, the bulk of the funding is carried by others. they are a critical partner in building afghan civilian capacity, monitoring human rights, supporting afghan elections -- everything we talked about today we partner closely with you in,. if we cannot depend on them, we will have to pay for some other because we do not have another partner that has the credibility and the reach that they have. >> thank you.

finally, you have been a great champion for including minorities and especially women for transition of afghan control. give us a brief synopsis of what the administration is doing to prepare for the upcoming conference and beyond to ensure that happens. >> you have been a great champion for the women of afghanistan as well. we are requiring a lot of emphasis by eight the united states and our partners on what is happening with women in afghanistan. i met with a group of women leaders when i was there. we expect there to be a process where women are involved at all levels of the peace and reconciliation efforts, which they can then speak for themselves and have their own say about their own rights. i will give you further information about that, but we have made specific requests of

the government of afghanistan that they be included. >> before i recognize the next speaker, the secretary will be departing after these questions. mr. macke is recognized. >> thank you, madame chair. it is great to see you again, a secretary. -- secretary clinton. i am going to switch gears. i served as the chair of the western hemisphere subcommittee. there is a lot to talk about, but i wanted to talk a little bit about fast and furious. at what point did the state department learn of operation fast and furious? >> congressman, i do not know

the exact time. i can tell you that based on our information from the part of the state department that would deal with this kind of issue, we have no record of any request for coordination. we have no record of any kind of notice or heads up. my recollection is that i learned about it from the press. that is my recollection. >> i think then i know the answer to this question -- did the state department issued the justice department a license for a written waiver in order to allow for the transfer of thousands of weapons across the u.s.-mexico border? >> congressman, this is the first time i have been asked this. based on the record of any activity by the bureau that would have been responsible, we have seen no evidence.

let me do a thorough request to make sure what i am telling you replace everything we know. >> thank you. that would be greatly appreciated. i wrote a letter to you yesterday. i am sure you got it and you read it. >> i thought it was for my birthday. >> happy birthday. [laughter] under the arms export control act, the justice department is required to receive a written waiver from the state department to account for their attempt to cause arms to be exported to drug cartels in mexico. if no such waiver was received, justice department officials have violated the law. you would agree with that, correct? >> i do not know. this is the first time i am being asked. >> i am not asking if there was such a written request. if they had not asked and received, by law, the justice

department would be violating u.s. law. >> i cannot offer any opinion on that. i do not have any information or analysis. i can only tell you the facts we know in the state department. >> if the law says that they have to get a -- the state department is required to give a written waiver for the cause of arms to be exported to drug cartels in mexico and if they did not do that, they are in violation of the law. who do we hold responsible? i think there is a lot of frustration, at least for myself, that when we hear mexico and president calderone complain about weapons being moved south of the border, to learn that our government was involved and the delivery of those guns is quite concerning. i am sure you fill the same way.

we are looking for answers as to who knew what, when, and why, and how this happened. i look forward to you getting back to me and the committee on -- about the waiver and whether or not the state department issued that waiver. second, do you agree with ambassador brownfield that there is an insurgency in mexico that are using terrorist tactics in mexico? >> congressman, i have expressed my concern about that in the past. we are sensitive to the characteristics that some of these drug traffickers have adopted that certainly resemble terrorist activity. we are also aware of the concern by the mexican government that

we not mix apples and oranges, so to speak. let's focus on criminality. let's not focus on something else. this is an ongoing discussion. >> she is quick to gavel me down. you, in the past, have identified it as an insurgency. >> i have said that it has characteristics of an insurgency, but i am very sensitive to the legitimate questions that the mexican government raises about whether those characteristics are such that it should be defined as that. >> thank you so much, mr. secretary. madam secretary, preparations for this oversight hearing were done by our afghan war veterans. thank you so much. it is a pleasure having you

here. the committee is now adjourned. >> thank you for allowing me to sit on the panel. thank you. host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> tomorrow, the libyan ambassador to the u.s. will talk about the death of -- death of a muammar gaddafi and the political transition taking place in libya. that is the national council on u.s.-arab wrote -- u.s.-arab relations. at noon eastern on c-span2, the urban institute post a discussion on the current economic downturn and how it affects children. >> up next, u.s. military leaders to testify about budget cuts and military readiness. the house passed a measure that would repeal a requirement that the government withhold federal taxes for payments to contractors. that debate is later.

>> i do not what at every story to be 1800 words. >> jill abramson became the first woman to hold the post of executive editor at the "new york times." she believes it is more -- a she envisions more changes. >> there is a certain lack of discipline. sometimes a point is repeated too many times in the story. there are too many quotes making the same point. i would like to see a variety. >> she will discuss our career, her new book, and the future of the times sunday night on c- span's "q&a". this weekend on booktv, general westmoreland led american forces in vietnam. his tactics and decisions or the reason we lost according to

lewis sorley. also, details about the unraveling of the u.s. automobile industry. also, 100 at african-americans in an examination of race, identity, and being black in america today. also, will feature authors are around the city. but for the complete schedule online and booktv.org. >> the pentagon is planning to make cuts in the next 10 years. next, leaders of from the military branches talk about the cuts and the readiness to fight another war. they testified at a house armed services subcommittee meeting. randy ford was the chairman. we'll also hear from the chairman of people armed services committee, congressman buck mckeon.

>> i appreciate your willingness to testify on this most important topic. in the interest of time, because we know we could have a votes coming any time and we may have to recess and come back because this is important and we want to get all of this on the record, i will dispense of any opening remarks. we will have both of them put in the record. i would like to, however, look at a procedural matter we like

to use in this committee. we discussed prior to the hearing that we would like to dispense of the roles and apart from the regular order so members can ask questions during the discussion. we would like to proceed with standard order for members to address witnesses, however, if any member has a question, please seek acknowledgement and wait to be recognized by the chair. we will hold questions to the standard five minutes. i ask unanimous consent for the purpose of this hearing that we dispense with the five minute rule and proceed as described. without objection, it is so ordered. gentlemen, we are delighted to have you with us today. we have the honor of having the general with us today, who is the vice chief of the united states army. he has been so since august 4,

2008. he is commanded at every local from platoon to core. -- platoon to corp. we also have admiral ferguson. he is the vice chief of admiral -- of a navy operations. he is the chief of legislative affairs and chief of naval personnel. also, the assistant commandant of the marine corps. general don ford has gone to a u.s. army ranger school and u.s. army war college and at has a very distinguished career. we appreciate the expertise he brings to this panel. last, a general brief love. general, we appreciate you being with us. general breedlove is the vice chief of staff for the air force. he is a georgia tech graduate.

we played you the other week. it may be the one bright spot we have this year, but thanks for your help and cooperation in that. he is also a graduate of arizona state university where he has a master of science degree. without further ado, we want to get right to your opening statements. we are pleased to have the ranking member joining us now. we also have with us the chairman of the full committee. before you got here, we talked about dispensing with the opening statements and putting them in the record. >> mr. chairman, i would like to welcome our witnesses. >> we appreciate your service to this committee. we have a special relationship and i just appreciate her help with this committee and the great work that she does. with that, we are going to do something a little bit different

today. we are going to put your statements in the record we want you to tell us the importance of what we have. i want you to expound on questions which your testimony anything that you want to stay. we'll start with general corelli. we have already had for under $65 billion cut from national defence. -- $465 billion cut from national defence. there are discussions that that will significantly reduce the force that we have in the united states army. general, you have been serving for a long time. u.s. served in almost every capacity in the army. when we talk about the rest these cuts can have, sometimes we talked about them as institutions, but it comes down to men. what have these kinds of cuts

done to these -- the rest of these men that served under you? >> chairman ford -- forbes, a distinguished members, i thank you for allowing me to be here today. these are challenging times. u.s. attorneys say that before. we are passed a decade of war. we have always had volunteers in our course, but it is important to note we have never fought for 10 years. we have never fought within entirely voluntary force. our forces are amazingly resilient. at the same time, we are strained. they have been absolutely amazing over these 10 years of war. i would like to leave you with three key points from my opening statement. first, we recognize that budget cuts and corresponding

reductions will be made. however, we must make them responsible so that we do not end up with a hollowed out force. i can expand on that later on. our nation is in the midst of a fiscal crisis and we recognize we must all do our part. we are continuing to identify efficiencies. we work very hard on our portfolio review process, which is found many of those deficiencies. when we appeared before the committee in july, we run looking at cuts and in the vicinity of $450 billion. the army's portion of that court is about 26%. that will be tough. the secretary of the army and chief of staff of the army has said it will be doable. i get paid to worry about things. i do worry that are cuts will be a little bit higher than that. above and beyond that, it will

directly impact every part of our army and our ability to meet our national security objectives and effectively protect our country against all threats. whatever cuts are made, it is amazing to sit here with the vice chiefs of staff when so many of the 31 before may have sat. they have had to make some of the same arguments and answer some of the same questions. i am sure that was true after the debate for the gulf war. we cut our army down to just over 300,000 folks only to grow it to fight that four-year war. at the end, we cut our army down to 530,000 soldiers. that number sounds familiar, i hope. we ended up with the korean war.

in the korean war, the first battle of that war was task force smith, an ill equipped, ill trained force that had entry but i guess there were incomplete, infantry battalions that were missing. the results were predictable. general bradley when the cuts were talked about after world war ii supported it. he went on to say that the strength of the military depended on the economy and we must not destroy the economy. but in his autobiography after the korean war, bradley wrote "my belief in significantly higher defense spending would probably wreck the economy was a mistake -- possibly the greatest mistake i made in my post war years in washington." i lived through an army that came out of a vietnam and did some of the same kinds of

things. 10-12 years we had to rebuild that army. these questions, these decisions have been made before. there is a tendency to believe that at the end of the war will never need ground forces again. we have never got that right. we do not have the imagination to always be able to predict exactly when that will be. whatever decisions, whatever cuts and reductions, we must ensure we do not lose the trust of the soldiers, the brave men and women, who fought for these last 10 years and their families. mr. chairman, i thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. we go to get into that with a little more depth. thank you for that. admiral ferguson, you are facing

a tough time. you are looking at a navy -- we can argue about numbers -- but china has more ships in the navy than we have in our navy. you have paid a $367 shortfall -- three and $67 million shortfall. we recognize that on surface-to- surface missiles we have a distinct challenge between chinese missiles and our missiles because we've not given you the dollars you need for technology. in addition to that, we see the projections for our submarines that could put us in the next 10 years where china could have a 78 for 32 of ours. what do these cuts mean to you?

what would it mean if we put additional cuts out to you? anything you want to put in your opening remarks, we want to hear from you. >> thank you, chairman for this. bes.hairman ford's it is my honor to represent the navy. we stand watch around the world today. i offer my appreciation for congressional support. in an era of declining budgets, we are mindful of the lessons of the past. taken in some or in part, low personal quality, aging equipment, degradation of a material readiness will inevitability -- will inevitably lead to a reduction in force. we need to keep our navy as the

world's preeminent maritime force. to do so, we must sustain the proper balance through the long term. those elements may be simply stated -- sustain the force structure, man that force with high-quality personnel with the requisite skills and experience, support it with accurate and the tories of squirt their parts -- support it with the accurate inventory of spare parts. our objective and challenge in this period of austerity will be to keep funding for future readiness and balance and holding a acceptable level of risk and the capacity of those forces. how we shape our cells in this environment must be driven by strategy. we feel that is extraordinarily

important. the cuts that are contained and you discussed we will accept as part of that reductions in capacity. it will affect certain everests of presence, our response times, the decisions will be tough, but they are executable. in looking at the strategy review, we think we can meet those challenges. we will meet those challenges contained in the act. we intend to take a measured approach. we will look at deficiencies in our overhead, our infrastructure, personnel costs, and our modernization. absent the support of the congress, the impact on our industrial base will be immediate, severe, and long- lasting, and fundamentally change the navy that we have today. mr. chairman, members of the

committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, admiral ferguson. general, you have also served your entire career in the marines. one of the things a lot of people believe is once we get out of iraq and afghanistan you will have all the resources you need to do everything you need to do around the world. as you look at the cuts that have already been made and we lookit the potential cuts, or forces could go down to as low as 150,000 men and women. what would that impact be on you and would you be able, even if we are out of iraq and afghanistan, to conduct a single contingency around the world? the floor is yours. >> thank you very much for the

opportunity to appear before .ou to \ almost 30,000 are around the world are doing what must be done. 20,000 are in afghanistan. those remains -- those marines remain our number one priority. i recognize that the nation faces an uncertain security environment and some difficult fiscal challenges. there is no doubt we have tough decisions to make to support the difficult decisions we have to make, we of gone to a force structure review. we offered that framework will allow us to provide recommendations to the secretary of defense and to frame the issue is similar to the ones the chairman asked me in his opening question. we recognize the need to be good stewards of resources and are working hard to account for

every dollar. in the end, we know we will have to make cuts. i think we need to adjust three situations -- strategy, balance, and keeping faith. strategy, we need to know what the nation requires us to do. we will build the most capable course we can to do it. we will use what we learned during the four structure review effort to make recommendations. with regard to balance, we do not want to make cuts that will affect the course. i have seen it personally in the 1970's as a young lieutenant. we do not want to have an imbalance between our training, our equipment, and our modernization efforts. at the end of the day, every unit will be ready to respond to today's crisis today. finally, we have to keep faith

in our people. it is the right thing to do and it is necessary for us to maintain a high quality volunteer force. we need to send a loud and unmistakable message that the contributions that our men and women have made are recognized and appreciated. there are many different definitions of keeping the faith. some attributed to george washington give this a good baseline. he said the willingness of future generations to serve will be directly responsible to how they perceive veterans. those words seem as relevant today as they were over two wondered years ago chairman, to get back to your specific question, when we went through the force structure review efforts, we came up with a size of 186,800. that is a single major contingency operation force. it can respond.

150,000 would put us out below the level needed. i would take about what amphibious forces have done. disaster relief in pakistan, supporting operations in afghanistan, responding to the crisis with pirates, supporting operations in libya, supporting our friends and in the philippines and japan we will have to make some decisions. we will not be able to do those kinds of things on a day to day basis. we will not be there to deter potential adversaries. we will not be there to assure our potential friends or assure our allies. we certainly will not be there to contain a small crises. with 100 the thousand marines, there would be some significant risk. we will be asking our marines to

do more with less. perhaps more importantly, their responses this will be significantly degraded. >> thank you, general. general breedlove, we thank you for working in your schedule to be here. when the air force and, when everybody else might come home, the air force often does not come home. they have to stay there and continue to do operations. i would like to have any comments that you have about what these cuts have meant to the airports already and what future cuts could do. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chairman. thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about 690,000 proud chairman who serve as the part of the joint team that you see in front of us. these are challenging times and

the air force has been at war for more than two decades. we went to the golf at the beginning of the '90s and did not come home. quite often when the nation comes back from a war, we need significant assets to overwatch remaining forces to provide support to those who would remain behind. the cuts that we see, i think my remarks and will talk about in just a minute, these are challenging times. the tempo is exacerbated by the fact that our airports since the opening of the gulf war has 34% of your aircraft that we started with and about 26% fewer people. the tempo that we face, which we

do not see a change in in the future, puts stress on the force. as lead to a steady decline in our unit revenues. we have tried to pick up new missions. the air force has been asked to support this joint team in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. we have been asked to build a in an increased capacity in special operations. we will continue to meet both of those requirements as part of this joint team and answer the call and the future. all the while, the strain put on our course -- we need to -- we are flying the oldest fleet the air force has ever flown. the department of defense and will have to be a part of this recovery and the air force will

pay its part -- play a part in that recovery. our goal is to do two things. first of all, maintain a credible military force. we expect it will be smaller and much smaller in some areas. we need to remain credible and capable as we get smaller. second, to avoid becoming a hollow force. like joe and pete mentioned, i was in the air force and the '70s and saw what day hollow airports looked like. we had air place that could not fly and buildings with no -- buildings with people who had no training to accomplice missions. we do not want to go there again. we will get smaller to remain capable. many of the challenges we see will come on the backs of our people. as we get smaller, the task does not change.

in many cases, we stay behind if there is a peace dividend. the tempo will only increase. the tempo on our reserve component, which is an integral part of our airports, will have to increase because they will become ever more important. finally, if cuts are allowed to take place, we will have to go beyond just getting to our capacity. we believe we will have to look at what are the capabilities we will have to shed and no longer offer to this joint team. a reduction in size would reduce the number of airman we can keep on board in the air force. it will impact the size of our industrial base. finally, as we downsize, some of the first missions will have to shed where we preclude of

further combat or where we bill at -- build allies that will help us. >> think you, gentle -- thank you, general. this is probably the most bipartisan committee in congress. we work together very well. i am privilege to have all of our members here. we also have the chairman of the full committee. part of the reason we serve in such a bipartisan means it is because of his leadership. i do not think he will ask questions, but i would like to defer to him for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. bank you for being here and for your comments. i think the cuts you are all working hard to put into place, i met with admiral mullen a month and a half ago and he

said that he assigned $465 billion in cuts. that came from the president's speech in cutting $400 billion. it is a cumulation of a lot of things. it is hard to get an exact number. i have also heard $489 billion. we will start hearing the details in january. most people in the country do not understand the focus on the super committee if they are not able to do their work, if they do not realize the extent of the cuts we have been working on now and will be hitting us next

year. we have had five hearings. that is not counting all of the subcommittees to get a handle on this and try to educate the rest of the congress and the populace of the country as to what really is going to happen to our military the first were the impact on the actual military -- the men and women that you served with those who lay their lives on the line right now. i never seen what us to do this while we are fighting a war. i think it is incumbent upon us to try to get the word out, the message to see if this is really what people expect. when i tell people what is happening, they say that is not

what we wanted. we want to get the troops out of germany or we want to get the troops home from korea. they do not realize the extent of what has already been done let alone what will happen with the super committee. yesterday we had another hearing where we had three economists and they talked about the financial impact to our economics -- to our economy. we are already in a fragile economy with a 9% unemployment rate. they are talking about job losses of 1.5 million, which could increase the unemployment rate upward 10%. the combination of all of this i am hoping will cause us to step back and say, wait a minute. is this really what we want to

do? this economic problem we are in right now that we have been building over decades cannot be solved in one budget cycle. we need to have some real understanding of what we are doing here and is this really what we want to do given the risks that we see facing us around the world. with that, mr. chairman, i think you. i thank you for being here. it looks like we are going to be having votes, by the way, which is unfortunate. i am hopeful we will return after the votes. thank you. >> faq. i will hold all my questions to the end. i would like to recognize the gentle lady from long for any questions she might have.

>> i have a number of questions. the admiral stated in july that further efficiencies and budget cuts would be determined to a comprehensive strategic review. to what extent are each of the services involved in conducting this review? what are some of the key tenets of this review? without a plan in place, why are we proceeding with archer cuts? why not wait until such a plan is developed. i do not understand the rationale of the reductions in force or the deactivation of the battalion's. i will start with admiral ferguson. >> if the gentle lady will yield for just a moment. they have called the vote. several of our members need to go to that vote. where would be coming back afterwards.

with that, if you like to answer. >> all the services are participating at the vice chief level in the ongoing strategy review. those discussions that are ongoing presently are looking at the budget submissions that the services have done and then they were primarily given a fiscal target. now they are looking at those fiscal submissions and looking at the overall strategy's going to forward and will take action as we make those decisions about balancing between those portfolios in terms of capability and capacity and does it meet the strategy we see going forward? >> the reviews are not completely finished. is that correct?

>> that is correct. >> they are not completed yet. those discussions are ongoing. >> do we have time for any other answers? we will come back to any additional questions that you have. would anybody else like to respond? >> we are -- admiral ferguson got it right. we are participants in the process of to do the comprehensive strategic review. we have an opportunity to provide input in the comprehensive strategic review. we are confident the results will be the framework within which specific cuts will be made. we had to take a look and assume proportional cuts across the board as we went through the drill. at the end of the day, as we get

toward december, the strategic review will be complete. at that point, will be able to talk about specific decisions, but our understanding is he is not made any final decisions. >> the other witnesses have the same answer? >> i would argue from the army standpoint that we are participating in the debate and the building. when i get up and in the morning and see how the stock market is doing, they seem to be discounting the requirement for ground forces, which is the natural tendency after what we have been through in the last 10 years. every other time we have done that in our history, we have done so on the backs of servicemen and women, soldiers on the ground. quite frankly, let's be honest -- it has cost us lies.

it cost us lies every single time. >> we have not done this when a war is going on. what is the timeline for the review completion? >> let's hold that until we get back. we have a few minutes to get up for vote. we will recess until right after the vote. we will be back. >> gentlemen, we apologize to you for the inconvenience of us having to go and do this vote, but that is what we are here for. we thank you for your patience.

>> general breedlove, what is the timeline for the review completion? >> as we were walking out, we all looked at each other in cape to the same conclusion. we expect the review should wrap up in december. as we are working on the budget issues between now and then and as we understand the facts of the review -- i would just echo mike three compatriots. we are and have been a part of formulating that strategy. >> thank you, very much. >> that is our collective wisdom. >> thank you. admiral ferguson, you did not answer fully the question i asked. -- i asked about the review process. i said i did not understand the

rationale for the reductions in force or the deactivation of the two ceebee battalions. could you answer that? >> as we look at the construction battalions around the ut globe, the initial budget commission we prepared had an order to meet the commands of the commanders. as we size our forces, those forces are on call to the combat commanders to serb future demand. we had to take reductions in certain elements of capacity across the force. -- across the force in order to meet the budget targets that we had. ceebees are a potential reduction. that is part of the effort we are looking at as to what the final construction will be.

>> thank you. i had one other question. why it was congress considering potential changes to recruiting and retention incentives, such as military retirement and health care or reductions to essential training with the military cannot identify the cost they pay for contracted services? the national defense authorization act requires contracts or requires an inventory of contracts for services. for nearly half a decade while this nation has been at war, the air force and the navy have failed to implement this law which would help us control the skyrocketing costs and expenditures before contract services. what is each of your military departments doing to reduce contracted services instead of just reducing dollars?

if you are only reducing dollars, you are likely setting up conditions to default to contractors. i guess there force will answer that first. >> thank you for the opportunity. we are, as our other services, looking at everything we do contractually, the lessons of the war we have been in for the past 10 years. what is inherently governmental and what would she be retaining versus those things we contract for, most specifically in combat zones. every facet of what we do via contract has been reviewed to see if this is something we either want to eliminate, do we need to repurchase and bring back into our service those things in a military way? this is at a time where our

airports will get smaller rather than larger, so there is a lot of pressure on the process. how does that relate to the jobs that our civilians are typically do? we are in an ongoing review, focusing most specifically on those things done in combat zones and whether they should be a blue suit job or a contract job. we are putting fiscal pressure on what we spend on contracts to help us incentivize. >> anyone else care to answer? >> in the navy, the office of the secretary is leading an effort to look at service contracts and other contracts that we have along the same lines as the other services to see what is inherently governmental and what we are paying for excessively. >> are you all again agreement?

>> we are doing the same thing. we have appointed the deputy secretary to handle contracts and service contracts, going to a complete review of them to understand where there are redundancies, where there are places where we can cut, and where there are certain areas that may fall under the purview of being able to use soldiers to help us in some of these areas. >> general? >> we are part of the same process that general ferguson described. >> what is the timeline for this review? >> i will be honest, i am not sure. i do not know what the time line is for the review, but i assume it is in conjunction with the budget that will be due in december. we will have an initial assessment of our contract. we will get back to you if it will extend past december.

>> thank you, a gentleman. i yelled back. >> the gentle lady has additional questions, but she is graciously deferred until the end so that our members can get their questions in we now have the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, for five minutes. >> i hope you'll continue to inform the committee of things that are in the code sections. things that we would like to pretend that we can afford, but we cannot, like some of the energy demands. the would like to invite you down to the air logistics center. if you come in hunting season, i promise i will make it a worthwhile venture. i will even get you to a georgia tech game, although i might wear

a different hat at the game. that would be a great opportunity for you to come as well. the men and women in our area are very grateful for the commitment of the three-the post cabbagy -- three-depo strategy. thank you so much for that. as we go through these cuts, i hope that -- as a member of congress, i know that you know more about running regencies, you're different departments, i should say, than i do. i hope that you will be very forthcoming with us about what we can do to help you in doing that. i want to be an ally for you. i am sorry that we're going through this. quite honestly, i am embarrassed that we have more discussions in this congress about cuts to the military than

we do to social programs. i think that is something that quite honestly is carrying america down a very dangerous path. i know america is tired of the wars in afghanistan. i know our men and women who have been over there continue to go, but they're ready for more time with their families. but i'm not sure that, when we come out, that the world will not be more dangerous place than it is today. i want to thank you for everything you have done. thank you for your support of robins. if i can never hope to, please feel free to call on our office. >> thank you. we do have a commitment to the three-depos. we thank you for your support to us. as we all look at what we can do to address the tale of our forces to add to the tooth, that

will continue to be important as we go for it. the depos bernanke the ability to all of our services that are unmatched around the world to make sure that our services, our force, and that their plans they fly are ready to do their mission and our commitment is strong there. >> yes, sir. the other aspect is that those cuts -- we need to rebuild a lot of our machines that we have used. every dollar that we take at of rebuilding those machines is a dollar that comes out of a man or woman's pocket that is working on the assembly lines. if you want to create jobs in the country, i would respectfully submit that this is the place where you do it. every citizen gets a direct benefit from a strong and well equipped military and every dollar that we spend in building our equipment is a dollar that goes back into an american

working man or workingwoman's pocket. thank you again for what you have done for our country and we will continue to stand ready and willing and able to help. >> the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for holding this hearing and for the witnesses for spending some time with us here today. first of all, i wanted to ask a question about a very specific issue, which is the t-27 cargo aircraft. it appears that a full production plan has been put on hold or partially delayed. obviously, for the army, that is a big issue. it is pretty old those that are left there. i wanted and a bit on where that

decision stands, where it is related to the $465 billion or if other issues are at work. i do not know whether the general wants to comment. >> sir, i will be the first to comment on that. i cannot speak specifically to what you mentioned about the decision on full-scale production. we will take that for the record and get back to you. as far as the c-27 and the mission of supporting the army and what would probably be called the last portion of the delivery of goods to our ground forces, both marine and army, the air force has a full commitment to that commission. we will not back off of the requirement for the airforce to meet that mission. if that mission is to be done ish c-27's or c-130's, that a decision that is still pending and is part of this ongoing budget review. but that will be worked out in the next few months.

>> charles, did you want to comment? >> we are committed to the c-27. it fills the gap. right now, my rotary wing aviators have goods on the ground for 12 months. they're coming home from a newer from 12 months to 14 months. a lot of it is moving from airfield-to-year field where ac- 27 can fill in a gap that we think is absolutely critical. even in afghanistan. but if you take it to other places in the world, it is even more convincing. plus, it provides a tremendous capability for homeland defense. that is one of the things that was critical about the c-27 and its ability to get into airfield here in the united states that other aircraft can i get into in the case of a homeland defense- kind of missions. we're totally committed. >> if we could get that follow- up, that would be great.

many of us are interested in pushing them along. i think the germans come in his opening remarks, talked about the shortfalls in the megan's account. in many respects, this should be a milestone -- shortfalls in the maintenance account. in many respects, the should be a milestone year. we are doing a full startup of r&d for the ohio program. obviously, this is progress that could be challenged if the sequestration goes into affect. maybe if you could talk a little bit more about the account in terms of impact and fleet capability of. >> in the navy, we set in stride.

we deploy. over half our forces are under way in ships and submarines on a given day. about 40% are forward deployed. the demand for those are going up. the maintenance funding that we have come up when we bring them home for their turnaround, is absolutely essential to sustain that force, to reset it, and prepared to go, both of the amphibious left for the marines and the aircraft carriers and surface ships. we have watched the trend over time. we are operating within acceptable levels. there is a negative trend over the long term as we shrink those maintenance funds. as we go forward, we're absolutely committed to keeping the force whole and ensuring that those forces that are operating are well maintained and operating. it does present a challenge with a declining budget. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from alabama is

recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. the dod in this current year budget projected fuel costs per barrel to be $431. the d.o.a. has paid $366 per barrel. and it is predicting that that law will be sustained throughout the balance of this fiscal year. how will you do with that? >> thank you for the opportunity. we do have an aggressive program in fuel savings. we're looking at opportunities, both existing technologies and new technologies, to get after it. a good example is a recording of our c one--- of our c-1/3 year crash. -- c-130 aircraft. simple things that we're doing

across our aircraft fleet, changing as we buy new aircraft, some of the exterior hold the suns, it cuts down on a little bit of fuel. you would think that that is not significant. but we understand that the air force is the number one user of fuel in the united states. every little bit that we can cut saves money on things that we need in the force. we are attacking this because this is the most important thing that we can get out for air force savings. >> thank you so much for the question. we share your concern about that and what i perceive to be a critical vulnerability, airlines of fuel, not only from a cost perspective, but from a long line of logistics', especially when we have seen in afghanistan but that doesn't terms of putting people in harm's way to deliver that fuel.

-- what that does in terms of putting people in harm's way to deliver that fuel. every unit that goes over there has renewable energy. that includes not only solar panels, but tend liners, low energy or energy efficient lighting. as we look at our requirements, as we acquire new equipment, fuel efficiency is a critical part of our requirements document. as a whole, within the department and navy, the secretary of the navy is leading an aggressive effort to replace our fossil fuels with alternative fuel sources and other initiatives in developing technologies that are available to releases from the shackles of fossil fuels, again, not only from a cost perspective, but from delivering it to the battlefield. >> i am hearing that this 25% increase in costs that was not budgeted is something that you think you will be able to adequately deal with? >> we are making choices.

we increase on the reliance for proficiency and then our pilots and ground forces to make sure that we can maintain a high state of readiness and still pay all our bills. i will not say it will let be difficult. it will be challenging. this exacerbates an already stressed maintenance account. but we're trying to work within the resources that we have, again, to ensure that our folks maintain proper training before they are deployed. but we have no issue with delivering fuel to our forces in the field which is our number one priority. >> we are also report of a very aggressive energy effort led by the secretary for all of our bases. but more to your point is the challenges of this fiscal year that we are facing. should the current prices be sustained, lately, we have seen

the start to come down a bit, but there were sustained for the entire year for the department of the navy, the short part -- the shortfall would be about $1 billion. we would offset those by reductions in other areas and operations and maintenance account to pay for that or seek a reprogramming or other action from the congress to address it. because it is an execution year, the horizon of many of our efficiency initiatives will not generate those savings in order to generate them this year. what we will let do is reduce the commitment of the operating forces to the combat commanders and the will to sustain what we need to train and operate forward. >> i have little to that except for the fact that the army is working in three specific areas, operational energy for forces deployed. we will do whatever we can to balance accounts to ensure that they have what they need. but we're looking at ways to reduce their reliance. one of them is replacing all of our generators with new fuel-

efficient and a jitters. the savings is huge. both the request for proposals for the ground combat vehicle, the infantry fighting vehicle, and the jltv, the tactical vehicle include energy savings. i think that is a big selling point when you look at the lifecycle cost of those vehicles once we bring them on board. in the closed-captioned stations, we're working with a net-0 pilot in three installations. we're using solar at the training center and other locations to help with our energy needs. and also for the human resource command, the new personal command of the army at fort knox, kentucky, they use geothermal to produce heating and cooling in the summertime. >> thank you. >> the lady from hawaii is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you. by the way, i think we owe you a happy birthday to the marine corps. you will be celebrating for the next couple of days or so. let me begin with statements to have made in your statement. i am curious about the fact that you said that our nation needs an expeditionary force that can respond to today's crisis with today's force today. first, i would like you to explain what you meant by the expeditionary force. also, tell me -- you're talking about today's crisis with today's force today, but as we look at a 10-year budget, what is the force to look like in the year 2020? buzzer discussions we have been having with secretary panetta -- those are discussions we have been having with secretary panetta as well as the new chief.

>> the first question concerns expeditionary. number one, we would not be relied on political actions provided by somebody else. if we needed to go someplace, naval forces are uniquely capable of being able to do that. we're capable in operating in an austere environment. wycombe with the water and fuel supplies that our marines and sailors need. in general terms, that is what we mean by expeditionary. by what we mean by today's forces today, the physical presence matters. number one, it absolutely shows a sign of our economic and military commitment to a particular region. it perturbs potential adversaries and ensures our friends. as you start moving up the range of military operations, it allows you to respond in a timely manner to crises. many times, you have hours if

not minutes to provide or respond to a crisis. you cannot do that from the continental united states. the naval forces are on the scene and able to do that. the other thing it does is it allows you to buy time for decision makers. when you have forces there, they can contain the crisis as the rest of the joint force prepares to respond to something that is a bit larger than the crisis being dealt with on the scene. from my perspective, when you look at expeditionary forces, you look at responding today's crises today -- what you really have with four deployable forces is the head did to bring that up from day-to-day operating conditions and respond to a crisis. the sticker price for that same force, you can enable a joint force to respond to something larger. >> you'll also 0 went off -- you also went on to say that director panetta ordered half

the time to achieve readiness. is it not the underlying assumption that we all have that we know where we will be? thus there not also have to be some kind of analysis? if you will be ready to go within a couple of hours or whatever it is, we know where we would most likely be, that your services will most likely be needed. i am for quality. i have kaneohe. if you're deployed to afghanistan, it will not be a couple of hours. these trees ise because we do not have money for everybody. so where is it we will put our resources? >> it is pretty clear to all of us and has been stated by the secretary of defense.

before the foreseeable future, we will have security challenges in the united states central command related to pakistan. this is another area where we expect a significant presence. but if there is one thing we're not very good at is predicting the future. as sure as we talk about the priority of the pacific and then the challenges that exist in the united states central command, someplace else will cause us to respond and we do not know where that will be. so when combatant commanders asked for deployed forces to be out there on a routine basis, each of them ask for that. they ask for that as a mitigation to the risk of the unknown. that is what i believe we provide. again, from a party perspective, certainly, we will see the proponents of our effort and commitment to be in the pacific command and the central command. but priority cannot be exclusivity. we still have to soot -- still have to satisfy the demands of

the of the combatants. but it is a hedge against the risk of the unknown. >> i am curious as to what an expeditionary force would be comprised of. i am talking about ships, helicopters and vehicles. if you can give me an idea for a things are no longer necessary, i will have an idea of whether or not we know what we're talking about. >> i will do that. the good news for use the there are expeditionary capabilities on the island of hawaii and available on the pacific in times of crisis. i would be happy to get back to you on the detailed expeditionary forces and rebel forces that are critical to our ability to do our job. >> thank you very much. >> i would be happy to do the same for the army. >> and the air force? >> and if you call it anything other then expeditionary force,

i would appreciate knowing what that is. >> we have been 100% right in something and that is never getting it right. >> general dempsey said the same thing. >> that is true. we have to do is look at history. when we do not have a balanced force that can meet wherever u.s. national interests are threatened, for the central curtises we must provide military force, that is when we get ourselves into trouble. i think that is important, to look at the history of how we have done. we are repeating a cycle that is something that has happened many times in our history. >> thank you very much. >> i want to thank you for your patience. we have just a few more questions. i will ask the gentleman from guam if she can ask a quick question of him. >> this is for you, general.

what shortages in critical skill sets in your respective services are your already experiencing because of manpower reductions already taken? what impact would you anticipate from further reductions? how are these shortages affecting your war fighting capability? general, why do not go first since we know that the air force has experienced shortages in more than a dozen enlisted nco and officers skill sets, especially in the maintenance area. >> general. >> thank you for the question. you're absolutely right. there are several skill sets that have come under pressure. i think it talks to capacity. in our air force, some portions of our air force have a good capacity to handle the first

fight. and then we will be stretched a little bit on the second fight. but already come in a scenario where we have one fight or where we are engaged just like we are now in afghanistan and iraq, we are already stressed in some very key areas. you mentioned several of them. we are growing so fast in the intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance that we're struggling to keep abreast of the requirements for those people who take the data that is coming into the system and break it down for use by our ground forces and others. our battlefield and men that were billed for a certain model during the cold war, we are catching up to their requirements for our battlefield chairman. all of the units on the ground are supported by those air combat control folks, see ct, our special tactics for fox --

special tactics folks. special operations, weather, and security forces, as we have picked up one more responsibility of the fence around bases. they're all under pressure. in our officer career field, some of the things that we never thought about, dissented because of the way that the services do differently, we have a lotus senior contracting nco's and officers. they normally do this with civilians. our expeditionary officers in some of these critical field, like air of subcontracting and specific civil engineering sets are all under pressure and things that we need to move forward on. as we construct our forced across these budget battles, we will be keeping our eye on growing those so that the air force will come under pressure in other areas. but we will have to keep an eye on those very critical ones so that we can grow to a better and

more acceptable level of risk. >> thank you very much. >> we will come back to that question as soon as the general has answered one more question. since the korean war, it is mine understanding that there has not been a single soldier or marine who lost his life in combat due to a threat from the air. that is 58 years. i may be inaccurate, but that is a statement that was given to me. oftentimes, we call that their dominance. if we were to move to those cuts that sequestration could bring about, would that put into question our continued ability to have that kind of air dominance? >> mr. chairman, i would never beg to correct, but i would in one way. we have, since the korean war, suffered an air attack by scud and by some others who have

taken the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines on the ground. i think that the point that you make is one that is often talked about. that is the fixed-wing air, to our opponents, airforce is, naval air forces, we have not lost or have been under attack since the latter part of the korean war. that is something that our air force says centered on our air force. but our marine air and naval air and even the robbery arm of the army, we have put together what we have called their dominance over the years to give our ground forces the ability to react and fight under that protection. i give you one small example that my friend from the army will chuckle about. when i was in europe during the late 1980's, we would practice for the big war on the plains of northern germany. we would go out in our brigade formation. when we came under attack from

supposedly soviet force air, we would do herringbone maneuvers and all kinds of things to react to so that they could set up and defend us and so forth. we have now come to an age where we are so used to and so enabled by the year dominance that the joint team brings to the battlefield that i cannot remember even talking about a herringbone maneuver in the last few years. our situation on the ground and in the sea would change drastically if it were not for the joint air forces that bring this capability. certainly, we will all be in a pressure under the new budget regime and especially if we go to sequester. i would just say that, without starting a long conversation about areas of the world where we talk about the paradigm of area and a to raheem devaughn, anti access area denial event,

so that our opponents build an area that is so constricted to our ability to enter the area or fight in the area due to their ability to cut air defenses, sea defenses, ship defenses that keep us at range that the future of the budget scenario that would severely constricted our ability to approach those requirements, those weapons, those new aircraft or other weapons that would give us the a2ad accessn thisa2a environment, i think that is where the pressure will be paired in some portions of the world, if we are not able to break the environment, i believe that we will be in a position where we will not be able to guarantee that their dominance for air supremacy to our sea and land forces as we operate. >> thank you so much for being here. i know you have to go.

we are accusing you from the hearing now. please know how proud we are of your service. thank you for being with us. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity. >> gentlemen, we will not will be much longer. just a couple of things that we want for the record. >> getting back to current shortfalls and the impact of future reductions, and mentioned in my opening statement that our deployed marines have all they need in terms of equipment and leadership to accomplish the mission. that is their absolute number one priority. the cost of insuring that they have all they need has been felt by the units at home station. two-thirds of our units at home station are currently in a state of degraded readiness. that impacts our ability to deal

with another contingency for the unexpected -- there is a cost when we come back out of afghanistan to reset the force, to address those equipment shortfalls and to refresh the command that will be coming out of afghanistan. we currently estimates that bill at $3 billion. in some ways, that is a good news story. a couple of years ago, that bill was in excess of $15 billion. but in the last couple of years, we have been able to do some resetting and support operations both in iraq and afghanistan. as with to the future, i would be concerned about two things. one, that we do? we reset the force and address those deficiencies and replace the equipment that is worn out from operations in afghanistan as we move to the future. the second thing is our ability to continue to modernize and keep pace with modern threats. and over and above the recent cost that brings us back to the force we had before we went to afghanistan and replacing ned

equipment, we need to keep pace and modernize our equipment. for the reductions would preclude our ability to modernize. over time, we would end up in the same state but we were in the 1970's where our equipment was antiquated and worn out. that is one of the key aspects of all of this. >> as we look at the manpower issues, the force is under pressure. our average deployments, 50% of our ships are under way and stretching out to about seven months. our ships are doing water in order to meet operational commitments overseas. so they are under stress. within that area, we have a group of very critical specialists. i am thinking of our nuclear operators, linguists, proctology is, those involved in highly technical fields like acoustics and aviation maintenance and electronics where, because the outside economy is presently not

hiring to the level where they could think about leaving, they are staying with us. i concern, as we go forward into this environment, which echoes my fellow vice chiefs is concerning this element of keeping faith with the force we have and ensuring we sustain their compensation in an area under high stress should the economy gets better and we lose those individuals in the future. retention is something we watch very carefully. we are enjoying great recruiting right now with the highest quality force we have ever had. we are very appreciative of that. in the long term, manpower, critical specialties are what we are most concerned about for our future. >> recruiting retention has never been stronger. it is absolutely amazing. if you had told me this eight years ago, i would have said that there is no way we could pull this together for eight years and having as strong as it

is today. it is absolutely amazing. but at the same time, as the guy who gets paid to worry about things, i also believe it is fragile. i worry about rotary wing aviators. that is an area that my folks are spending 12 months in theater, coming home for maybe 50 muster now and then right back out. i have a beat -- for maybe 15 months right now and then right back out. we are increasing our uniformed contract in court. the exterior of the army has made a decision to add additional uniformed contacting specialists, officers and senior non-commissioned officers to the united states army, even as we downsize the force. we realize it is absolutely critical. electronic warfare is also an area where we are adding to our rules, even as we downsize. >> i would like to pylon to what

the general said. what really concerns me is the modernization area. the ground combat vehicle, the infantry fighting vehicle is critical to the united states army. we're not talking about going into full reproduction. all we're trying to do is get from milestone a to milestone be and see what industry can give us at a point where we can make a decision from two years from now whether to go to a new build that industry brings us while, at the same time, during that time, we will look at off-the- shelf solutions to an infantry fighting vehicle. there are many. and then when those two lines of effort converge to and a half years from now, we will make a cost-informed decision on what we can afford. but to cut that off now, to not provide us the ability to do that will only put us two years behind.

a modernization program is critical to the army. i think we're doing the same thing with the jltv. we are looking at the possibility of recapping some of these and what that would cost. at this -- recapping humvees and what that would cost. we want to buy this vehicle between two hundred dollars -- two hundred thousand dollars and two hundred $40,000 per vehicle. -- between $200,000 and $240,000 per vehicle. do we recap humvees or do we go with a new jltv? i think it is absolutely essential that we be allowed to

continue that critical work or we will end up with a force that is not modernized and a force that is not modernize is an unbalanced force. in the end, it will cost us lives. >> thank you. that is very informative. >> one of the things that all of it -- all three of you talked about -- first of all, i want to compliment you. all three of your services have done a great job in retaining your troops and recruiting. i have looked and seen the price in each of your eyes as you look at the products that you're able to train and turnout. but i also hear you saying a phrase -- keeping faith -- which is the compensation package. it is a holistic approach. it is more than just the dollars. it is everything. it is the commissaries that they go to, the schools that they use, the programs that they have as an overall package.

when someone sits down and determines whether they will reach up or sign in the first place -- there wily will re-up r sing in the first place we had a recent policy change with don't ask/don't tell. we did an in-depth study, surveys, focus groups that were done before we implemented that policy. i wonder if you could elaborate a little bit what the army did, the navy did, the marine corps did in terms of that policy. and then compare that to what we have done with the compensation packages. have we done any similar types of analysis? >> we have not. the proposals have been coming

from every direction. you're so correct. this is a holistic review. it needs to include those benefits you have for medical care, retirement, educational benefits -- they'll have to be looked at in a holistic package and not looked at as individual programs because they are all interrelated. we need to do those focus groups. we need to know what the educational benefits mean to a 19-year-old kid coming out of high school in coming into the united states army. what role does that play in making their decision during a time of war? the secretary of the army and the chief of staff went out and talked with soldiers. they were expecting to get questions.

they got a from a 19-year-old kid who said, "mr. secretary, what are you doing to my retirement?" we know the numbers, less than 70% of those will never reach retirement. but it leads one to believe that that retirement package had a role in this individual making a decision to join us during a time of war. if we go back to what we just talked about in recruiting and retention, these are huge in our ability to be able to maintain this forced overtime. i would only echo what you say, chairman. we really need to take the time to look at this. we nitpick we understand it needs to be looked at. but -- we understand it needs to be looked at. but let's look at it collectively, the entire package, and see where that will take us. >> how many years have you served in the army? >> just short of 40. i do not look it, do i?

>> no, you do not [laughter] . would you say it would be foolish or unpredictable for us to begin launching on is compensation packages before we see what it will do to the force? >> yes. >> i would echo his comments and say that, when i go out and travel through the force and i visit, it is the number one question that i get. part of the benefit of the review process that happened under the steady for the repeal of don't ask/don't tell, we allowed a very methodical review of the policy issues, and ability to socialize discussions with the force and allow people to work through and air the questions and things of the had about the policy development. it was a pretty thorough process. they're worth surveys and policy

development and analysis and communication. in an issue as important as retirement to our force, and for their decision about the attention, is similar type review of that thoroughness in nature would be important, as well as the ability to have the force be communicated on the elements that are under consideration. i think that is essential for the long-term viability of the force. >> thank you. >> thank you for that question. i would agree with the characterization that you laid out in terms of compensation. i would summarize the key point in that is this. there have been many proposals about compensation that are out there that talks about how much money we will save. i have not seen a single proposal that provides analysis of what the effect on the force would be. at the end of the day, what compensation is about is our ability to continue to recruit and retain the high quality force that we have had in harm's way over the last 10 years.

if you played for, it is a conversation about a young sergeant will have with his spouse 10 years from now. the spouse will say that your four years are up and what will we do? you have been away from home 180 days out of every 365 days. this is really hard. you're missing the key milestones of your children's lives. will we stay in or will we get out? at that point, the family will look holistic the at housing, education for their children, medical support, behavioral health support that exists and some of the intangibles like is their service a valued commodity have respect in their community, do their leaders treat them with trust? those are the tangible and intangible aspects the cause people to serve. when we talk about compensation, we need to talk about it in that light. it needs to be a holistic approach to ensure that, at the end of the day, when they have that conversation that the compensation for his service and

the value placed in his service exceed the risks that we ask him to endure. >> general, i want to ask you the same question. despite your youthful, how many years have you served in the united states marine corps? >> i have served a mere 35 years in active duty. >> how detrimental do you think it would be to your force if we launch on an changing these compensation packages before we do these reviews? >> i think it would be reckless to do changes in our compensation package right now without understanding the effect. i think each of the gentleman on this table will remember the quality of force that we had in the late-1970's. that is not what we want to go back to. as long as our nation has made a decision that we will have an all-volunteer force, the critical aspect is that we have to make sure that the compensation meets the requirements of the all- volunteer force. whether it is expensive or not

is relative to what you get from it and how much it costs may not be expensive when you think about it in those terms. from my perspective, again, the chairman has said that we looked at compensation and we should study compensation. at the end of the day, we have to do that in a way that ensures that we continue to recruit and retain that high-quality force. folks who lose sight of that are it heading down a path where they have no idea what is on the other end. >> i would like to shift gears a little bit. we hear a lot of discussions, both in congress and across the country. if we were to not be ford- deployed, if we were to pull our troops and assets from across -- not to be forward-deployed, if we were to uphold our troops and assets from across the globe, in general, can you tell

us how that would impact the marines if that was done and whether or not you think that would be a good policy for us to undertake? >> first of all, as i mentioned , our forward-deployed and forward-based forces show our commitment to various regions. being engaged this way helps us to shape the environment rather than reacting to the environment. we're allowed to respond to crises in an efficient manner. to give you an example, from a time and space perspective, from the impact and pulling back to the continental united states, at the 10th amendment -- the marine expeditionary force in okinawa and move it to the

continental united states, in the event of a crisis, chairman, it would take months to move that forced the western pacific. it would take a miracle of planes, trains, and automobiles to move that force. >> we had a sea power symposium in rhode island. nearly all were chiefs of their navies from countries around the world. the question that they raised repeatedly is will you be here with us? will you be forward and operate? they articulated the need for stability against piracy, to provide a shield for our allies in europe, a nuclear deterrent, to be able to operate with our partners, the marine corps, project power from a carrier air wing, from a submarine sgn, or

from the amphibious forces. but the primary element is the stability and assured the to our allies to be forward and to respond quickly. the demand for naval forces has never been higher, both in central command and the western pacific, but also in other regions. or to support special forces from international waters. we see the pulling back those forces would abdicate the nation's maritime neleadership n the world. >> thank you. general. >> we understand that adjustments will have to be made to forward-deployed army forces. at the same time, we think it is absolutely critical from engagements standpoint. the relationships that are made when a young captain meets another captain from another

service and they grew up together in their own services and have that connection back and forth, they are absolutely critical, particularly in a strategy that will rely on the ability of allies to assist us. without that forward engagement, that living and working and training with those forces, we lose so much. i would be very, very careful at taking a look at just what the green-eyeshade people would look at when they look at forward- deployed and station forces. i would look at some of the second and third order effects and the intangibles of the relationships that are built and how critical they are in a time of crisis. it is always good to have someone on the other side you can call. and many of these engagements provide that.

>> we sometimes get caught in the nomenclature and the syntax. if we make all of these cuts, we will have to come back and redo our strategy so that we cannot do as many missions. the chairman was kind enough or smart enough to have the three former chairman testify before the committee a couple of weeks ago. we had a former chairman -- we had former chairman hunter and skelton and warner from the senate. i ask them what warning you would like to give to our committee or to the congress from all of your years of experience. and congressman skelton said that, throughout his tenure in congress, there were 13 contingencies, 12 of which were not protected. -- or not predicted. -- were not predicted.

do you know when you were asked to perform by the president of the united states and said you could not because it was not in your strategy? >> no. when i was a division commander, i spent a year in iraq. i came back and went into a recent days. i was back for three months when katrina hit in the continental united states. i was told that i was at the lowest readiness level of any unit in the united states army. to pick up a brigade and send it to new orleans, to fort hood, texas within 24 hours. when i asked the question -- are you kidding me? we had just gone back from iraq. they said, you do not understand could you pick up your brigade and be in new orleans in 24 hours. we will never fail you. we will always do it. but if we are not trained, not equipped, do not have the proper force structure, the results will not be good.

they will not be good. >> would it be fair to say that but that includes the number of men and women who come back -- >> that is exactly where those try to show in my historical examples. no one ever said no, we will not take task forces into korea. they said roger, we will do it. they went in with incomplete infantry battalions and ill- equipped and they took 40% casualties. that is what happened. we will never say no. that, i think, we can all promise you. the key is the results when we do that mission. >> admiral ferguson? >> i would echo that. in the history of the nation, we have never said no and we will never say no in the future. our forces will be as ready as we can make them. we will operate forward and be ready and we will take risks at

home rather than in any way keep the forces that we have able to achieve emission. >> would you agree that, if that risk is increased that the risk of the number of men and women may come back from that mission are at risk if they are unprepared? >> i think all of us in the service except that risk as part of the business of wearing this uniform and serving the nation. we accept that as part of the calculus. our mission as leaders is to make them as ready, to give them the equipment and minimize that as much as possible. >> saying no to the commander- in-chief is not in our dna. we will never do that. we never have. i would agree with what they have said. we will never say. but if you go into harm's way without adequate equipment, without adequate leadership, the cost of going into harm's way without being ready, which is

what we have articulated today, which is the requirement to keep our forces and a high rate of readiness, not to have them prepared for the unexpected. but the cost of going into harm's way without the benefit of feliz readiness is absolutely at the cost of young americans. >> one of the things that we asked the former chairman is that, if you could give us one warning about the cuts, what with the warning be you would give to the full committee that we could give to congress? out of all of your years of experience, what concerns you most? with that, please feel free to tell us anything that we have left out that you feel you want to get on this record so we can give you that opportunity to do that. then i will wrap up by letting the chairman and missed the bill have any final comments that they would like to make. bidell.miss the bil

>> my biggest fear is that -- we understand that we have to downsize the army. we know that we're going to 520,000 -- that is in the book. i am concerned about losing the entire temporary strength increase because i have such a high number of individuals who are in the disability evaluation system. is taking me wait too long to get through that. i will not go into it in great detail. but i hope we will look at the disability evaluation system and design one for an all-volunteer force rather than a system that currently is built for a conscript force. i think that is a huge issue out there when it comes to readiness that we have to look at. but my fear is that we will might do this in a balanced way. whatever size force we have at the end has got to be modernized, well-trained, and maintained. that is absolutely critical. and besides shrinking our force,

the real mistake we have made in the past is to take some kind of solace in the fact that, from the army standpoint, we maintain at hueneme.ucture tha it was the modernization of that force and the training of that force that got them into trouble. that is what caused the 40% casualty. i just ask that, as we look at this, that we do so with that 3- assessed at the top about early on, force structure, modernization, and training and maintaining that forced and ensure that, whatever size the army is at the end of this thing, that it is a well- trained, modernize force that can do with the nation asks it to do. >> i firmly believe that america

is a maritime nation, faced by two oceans and our prosperity and our standing in the world in many ways is insured by the no forces that we are able to deploy forward. around the globe, potential competitors are working to negate the advantage through anti-access aerial the nile activities and we have to be able to pace that in the modernization of our forces as we go forward. our allies and our friends look to was to provide stability in the global common, that is the sea. we have assured them that we're committed to do so. i think that is an important point of our security as we go forward. and i think about the future, the element of balance within the naval portfolio is important. it is about ensuring the forces that we have, whatever level that we sat on those from a strategy and the fiscal environment are extraordinarily

capable to meet that threat, able to move forward, ready with adequate weapons, people, training, such that it delivers to the president and the nation options that he can use forward away from our shores. as i leave you with thoughts were things that really affect me, i had the occasion to attend the memorial service for the seals were killed in that crash in afghanistan. the strength of their families and the commitment of those individuals who are operating on a 700-day cycle and are gone for about 500 days -- have been doing this for 10 years of war. that core of people in the united states are willing to raise their right hand answer. to me, we can never lose that. that is the most essential element. thank you. >> what concerns me -- without

an adequate appreciation of the implications of readiness or of breaking faith. what concerns me is that folks who think that, if we get it wrong that we can simply fix it in a year or two. that is not possible. if we break the trust of our marines, sailors, soldiers today, it will be ticket before we get it back. some of the decisions we make, from an industrial base perspective, but also from a human factor perspective, we cannot possibly get it wrong. we will not get it exactly right, but we cannot exactly get it wrong. the last thing is that people would assume that the united states of america reduces in capability and someone else will be out there to pick up the slack. i do not know who that would be. who will pick up the slack for people who -- we assume

extremist vetter critical to the united states if they are not there to deploy, not forward to engage and not providing our potential feliz. >> thank you, general. we have been joined again by our chairman. i would like to ask if he has any final questions or comments you'd like to offer. >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. not to drag this out, but i had a call several weeks ago from a young man that i watched grow up. his dad is a good friend of mine. he is an air force officer. he is a physician station data send a tailspin -- stationed out of senate failed -- stationed out of san mateo. he has been in the service for 12 years. he asked me what he can expect.

he is enjoying the service, but he is very concerned. i could not tell them. i do not know what his future is. i do not know >> can we look forward to a career? i have seen this movie before, when i was pretty new in the congress. i was going up to this at west point and i had a lieutenant colonel with me. he did not let us go anywhere alone. his dad had been the chief of the army. no, his grandpa had been the chief of the army. his dad had been the youngest

brigadier in the army, and then he suffered a stroke, and that ended his career. this lieutenant-colonel, his whole life, that was all he ever want to do was serve in the military. .e was being rif'd the drawdown under bush and clinton earlier in the 1990's, he did not want to leave, but he did not have a choice. when we got to west point, we were greeted by a lieutenant colonel there, and he was also being rif'd. to the first guy, it meant a lot. that does break faith as far as i am concerned. you start somebody out on a

career, you send them to west point or annapolis or air force academy, and you make certain promises, and then you break those promises. that is basically what has happened. i think about these young men that are going outside the wire over in afghanistan every day on patrol, and if they are having to think about what is happening about my future, instead of contra rate -- concentrating on ied's's or snipers are just not being able to be totally focused on their job, that puts them at risk today, needlessly.

>> mr. chairman, we thank you for those comments and that passion and you have for our men and women who serve in our military. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank the general for his comments about the specific area and how important it is that we continue to increase our force structure. this is a troubled area, and mr. chairman, i live there. that is my home. i want to know that we americans living in guam and other islands surrounding us are protected. and to all of you who gave us information this afternoon, i found it very valuable and how important is to keep up the

strength of our military forces. >> we thank you for your service to our country and for the men and women who served under you. i think we can tell from listing to your testimony and the comments appear, this is not just about procurement, not just about aircraft carriers. does all come down to individuals and those men and women who served under you. all of us have those stories that make this very, very real. mine was a young marine. only wanted to do from the time he was 11 was served in the marine corps. when he was 18, he became a marine. when he was 19, i was speaking at his funeral. he had a tattoo of an american flag, and another one of family. this is the absolute best that america has to give. one of the things we have to

make certain of is that we do not break that fate. admiral ferguson, as you mentioned, and if if we lose those families, if we lose those people, this country has a tough road for us to travel down. i think he could tell from this subcommittee, we don't plan to go quietly in the night. we plan to fight as much as we can to make sure you guys never have of their fight. we are keeping faith and making sure they are the best trained, best prepared, best equipped military in the world. thank you for your careers and helping to make that happen and thank you for giving us a record that we can share with other members of congress to help make that a reality. with that, we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> on tomorrow's "washington journal," the chairman of the house transportation committee will talk about transportation spending and budget cuts. then former vermont governor howard dean, who also served as democratic party chairman, will give his take on politics in the 2012 presidential campaign. after that, a roundtable discussion on agriculture issues. cynthia clark and bob young join us. "washington journal," each morning at 7 eastern here on c- span. later in the evening on c-span2, vice president joe biden will be the keynote speaker at the florida democratic party convention in orlando. our live coverage starting at 7:30 p.m. eastern.

>> spend this weekend in knoxville, tenn. and look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of the model city. the university of tennessee has 4 acres of decomposing human remains. also, a look at alex haley and his life in knocks bill. find out how he fell in love with the city during a 1982 visit. on c-span3, a visit to the

sequoyah birthplace museum. also a visit to secret city, oak ridge laboratory historian on the development of the atomic bomb. ville a true southern city? watched throughout the weekend on book tv and american history tv in knoxville, tennessee. >> coming up shortly, secretary of state clinton testifies about u.s. foreign policy priorities and gives an update on the situation in pakistan and afghanistan. the house voted today to repeal a 3% withholding from federal contractors created to ensure they are paying their taxes. to offset the financial loss, the house approve income

calculations for the 2010 health-care law. the two measures are being combined and sent to the senate as one bill. here is some of the house debate. ngressman earl blumenauer. advocates, to these have 25 members of the ways and means committee supporting r is legislation, a clea signal of the strong bipartisan support for repeal of this 3% withholding rule. . this provision like many efforts to increase federal revenue and tax compliance is lined with paperwork, complexity, and cost, all of the things that hinder rather than help promote a

climate for job creation. by considering and passing this bipartisan bill, we will unlock new opportunities for hiring. job creators have told us just that and thas why this legislation has the support of a diverse coalition of more than 170 groups, including the government withholding relief coalition. like those job creators, others recognize the need for repeal. including president obama. in the statement of administration policy in support of h.r. 674, the administration noted that, and i quote, the effect of the repeal of the withholding requirement would be to avoid a decrease in cash flow to these contractors which would allow them to retain these funds and use them to create jobs and pay suppliers, end quote. mr. speaker, i couldn't agree more. supporting the repeal of the 3% withholding law is a demonstration that washington can work tether with a strong bipartisan vote we can reduce the uncertainty facing america's

job creators and we can free up valuable resource businesses -- resources businesses can use for hiring. i ask my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 674 and urge the senate to swiftly take up and pass this legislation. mrspeaker, i ask unanimous consent to he the gentleman from california, mr. herger, control the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield such time as i shall consume. the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman is recognized. mr. levin: i rise in support of this bill. it should have happened earlier. i think most of us if not all of us agree that this provision should be repealed. it is not nearly targeted and it would indeed impose significant and costly burdens on federal, state,nd local governments. i think we should all remind

ourselves it was passed some years ago and it was, i think, misguided when it was enacted in 2006 when we in the minority here did not control the congress. indeed, the ways and means committee when we were in the majority approved a repeal of the provision in 2009 and the congress ultimately delayed its effective date. i do want to comment on the title of this bill that refers to job creation, and it should be noted that this is really not going to address the need for creation of jobs in our country. we hav been here now nine months. there is still no effort by the majority here in the house to bring up any meaningful job

legislation. and when the president brings up proposals to create jobs, they are thwarted by the majority here and by the republicans in the senate. so let's support this bill but not pretend that it will create jobs. and in this respect i refer to a recent statement by mark zandi, the chief economist for moody's analytics, whoaid this about this bill. i don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. it's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up, end of quote. and indeed this needs to be cleaned and therefore we need to pass it. let me also comment and we'll talk about this later on the second bill, the pay for. i went before the rules committee to ask that there be

consideration of a different pay for. what we'll be considering later, and i just want everybody to understand the facts and each can judge on his own or her own how they'll vote, that the impact of the pay-for that came through the ways and means committee mority could cause up to 500,000 individuals to lose health care coverage. i offered an amendment in the rules committee that would have offs the cost of a business tax provision by closing a loophole on the business side that's properly enjoyed by oil and gas industry -- improperly enjoyed by oil and gas industry giants and unfortunately my amendment was ruled out of order. we'll talk about that later. we are now on this bill. i urge its support. let's not pretend it's a job creation bill. let's get by here on bills

that will, indeed, help to promote jobs in the private sector of the united states of america. as our president has proposed and he has pleaded that there be consideration by the house and the senate only to be responded to with deaf ears. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: thank you, mr. speaker. i i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in strong support of h.r. 674, the 3% withholding repeal and job creation act. the american people have repeated called on congress to work together in a bipartisan way to encourage job creation. that's exactly what we are doing here today. h.r. 674 repeals a tax that requires government agencies at

all levels, federal, state, and local to withhold 3% of all payment for goods and services beginning at the end of next year. this will affect everyone from manufacturers, to road builders, to physicians who treat seniors on medicare. many of these businesses operate on margins of less than 3%, meaning that this provision will harm their cash flow and effectively force them to give the federal government a no interest loan. even though it doesn't go into effect for another year, the 3% withholding tax is holding back job creation right now. coming from a small business background, i can attest that businesses look several years ahead when they are deciding how to invest. this week the associated general contractors of america released

a survey finding that nearly half of all construction firms would be forced to hire fewer workers if the 3% withholding tax takes effect. as one a.g.c. member put it, quote, the way the economy is now we are very lucky to make 3% profit. this could put us out of business along with other 300-plus employees, close quote. now is the time to eliminate the barriers that are standing in the way of jobs for american workers. h.r. 674 has the support of businesses, state and local governments, and 269 bipartisan co-sponsors in the house of representatives, as well as the obama administration. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the government withholding relief coalition

signed by more than 150 businesses, health care, education, and local government groups supporting passage of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. herger: with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield now as much time as he shall consume to mr. blumenauer who is a lead sponsor of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate your courtesy, mr. levin, as i appreciate the opportunity to work with my friend, mr. herger, no moving this bill forward. -- on moving this bill forward. it was only a couple months ago we were having a press conference in the triangle with a bipartisan group of members of congress, representatives from some of the coalition members that my friend, mr. herger, referenced, to be able to focus on the need to repeal this legislation. mr. speaker, i think it is

important to mark th critica step today. it will pass on the floor of the house in a strong bipartisan vote. reaffirming the bipartisan cooperation that got us to this point. i think that this is an example of what potentially we could do because a number of the members of the coalition tha mr. herger referenced and that he's entering into the record are likewise people o have a vision about how congress and the federal government could help rebuild and new america. the contractors, the engineers, the architects that we have heard from would also like us to step up in a bipartisan manner to deal with that. the references to people who are dealing with health care. we are facing -- we still face sort of a health care crisis in this country. we may be able to deal with much of it with health care reform bill, but many of the provisions

that are eedded in law now have their core as bipartisan ideas, and i hope the same bipartisan spirit could help us accelerate bipartisan reforms so that the american public benefits in the health arena as well. you're going to hear a little spirited exchange in the floor of the house about how we pay for this legislation. beuse it has a c.b.o. score that's attached to it that suggests that this will raise revenue. well, i have two observations that i think are important to note dealing with pay for. first and foremost, the sad fact is that this bill actually would cost more to implement than it would ever raise for the federal government. but we have a quirk in our scoring rules where ey credit revenue, they n't deal with the cost of compliance.

and this complicated piece of legislation were it ever enacted would require the department of defense, the general services administration, up and down the federal government, there would be mechanisms to try and impose on it. it wouldn't ju cost contractors, hospitals, state and local government. it would actually cost the federal governme far more than we would collect. i think one estimate was for the department of defense, it would be $17 billion, which would dwarf what would be collected. and we need, mr. speaker, as we move forward, to do a better job of thinking about this -- the scoring rules. it's not c.b.o.'s fault, but that's how we play the game. and i find it troubling. it also, i think, speaks to -- volumes about how we operate in the legislative process.

this was passed in 2005, kind of dropped in in sort of a backroom negotiations. it was never part of regular order. there was no hearing before our ways and means committee to talk about this, cause the elements thatave been documented in our committee and on the floor about the unworkibility of this would never have survived a regular legislative process. well, i'm pleased that the democratic side has at least tried to delay and to try and fix this. i'm pleased that we have worked with mr. herger in a bipartisan fashion to bring this legiation forward. and i think mr. camp and mr. levin are committed to regular order. we have been having, i think, some very productive discussions on major issues. i hope we can keep this commitment to regular order to be able to make sure we don't have something like this in the

future that has massive unintended consequences. mr. speake this is an idea that never should have been advanced in this form. it's been a long road to try and correct it, but today we are making an important step towards that correction. but i would add a note of caution. the same spirit ofcooperation and focus that has gotten us to this point wit what will be an overwhelming vote, i he it's unanimous, we need to keep going so that this isn't a casualty of the back and forth process between the house and the senate. the senate played a large role in giving us this in the first place. we need to make sure that it is not caught up in the larger dramas that occur around here where we can keep our eye on the ball and we can fix it. and i do want to say just one brief word about the pay-for.

as i say it's illusory because it would cost far more than we'd ever collect, but we have to deal with the scoring rules as they are. there are two proposals, one would tighten some eligibility for the health care reform, the other would take away some unnecessary tax benefs to large oil companies that long ago ceased to have any impact on oil exploration or reducing price. . while i actually think that the pay-for from our side of the aisle dealing with the oil tax adjustment is superior, i think as a practical matter we are going toave to do both of these in the months ahead if we're going to deal with our budget problems, reducing expenditures. so i am hopeful that we don't

allow the debate over the pay-for to obscure the need to move forward, and as a practical matter, we have big challenges ahead to get our deficit under control. and i think frankly that both of these are items that we should enact it into law, will be enacted into law. while there will be a spirited discussion and i respect people on both sides and ihink they will be making good points, i hope it doesn't get in the way of the big picture. i appreciate the gentleman from michigan permitting me to speak on this, his leadership in this, salute my frid, mr. herger. i hope we can mark this step today for what it is but keep our eye focused on how we deal with these larger issues going forward so we're not back in this situation in the future. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

the gentleman from california. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: and i want to thank my good friend fm oregon, mr. blumenauer, for your support for the lead co-sponsor on the other side of theisle. thank you very much. i'd like to take a moment to read a few of the comments that the ways and means committee received from businesses and organizations across the country demonstrating while repealing 3% withholding tax is critical to laying a stable foundation for job creation. buffalo ply, incorporated, of boulder, colorado, writes, we are a 20-year-old small business that sells high-volume medical equipment at a low margin with a very significant part of our sales going to the federal, state and local government. the 3% withholding tax will exceed our company tax

viability which will destroy cash flow and ultimately hinder our ability to grow the business and add new employees. closed quote. ian frost, principal and founder of e.e.e. consulting in virginia says, quote, if enacted the rule would mean the withholding of approximately $130,000 of revenue, using our projected 2011 revenue. this 3% withholding would essentially be a loan to the government for the year until our taxes are filed. worse still, it might require our company to secure a loan to help us cover operating expenses at a time when cash in the bank is limited. the withholding could limit our ability to make payroll each month and limit our use of profits to give bonuses to our employees, expand our business and hire new employees.

$130,000 each year would deplete our cash reserves by about 30%. closed quote. the university of illinois notes, quote, this will add expenses at a time when our university, like many others around the country, is facing reduced state support. we would have no choice but to ss these expenses on to our students, many of whom are also struggling to make ends meet, closed quote. the american medical association states, quote, in repealing the 3% withholding provision altogether, h.r. 674 will help medicare beneficiaries maintain access to care while assisting government agencies, physicians and other health care providers avoid substantial implementation costs that will outweigh the benefits. closed quote. and i'd like to add that at a time when many of us are

concerned about fixing the s.g.r. that threatens massive cuts to physicians participating in medicare and a loss of access to physician services for many seniors, the last thing we want to do is add yet another potential cut to physicians' payments. again, this is a few of the dozens or hundreds of letters and testimonials that the committee received from businesses across the country. we need to pass h.r. 674 and repeal this harmful tax today. i reserve the balance of m time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i nowield as much time as he shall consume, a most active member of our committee, mr. pascrell from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pascrell: i come to the

floor today to support h.r.74 which will repeal a burden on government contractors, particularly small businesses. i oppose the enactment of the 3% withholding when a republican congress and a republican administration enacted it. of course, i knew it would hurt the economic engines of our economy. the repeal of this requirement will free up small businesses' cash flow, increasing their ability to add jobs and to bid on new projects. this is only a very small part of a jobs plan that could help to reduce employment. the majority, the infrastructure bank or funding for our first responders and teachers, they did not support. so i imagine th's not very important, those items.

the majority has decided to promote tir false 15 bills that attacks clean air, safe water and consumer safety. be prepared, america, to eat poison. not only do independent economists think that these bills do not create jobs, a recent report found that the so-called economically stifling regulatory atmosphere is not as bad as they say. the report says this -- the obama's white house has approved fewer regulations than george w. push at this point -- bush at this point in their tenures. and the cost of those rules haven't reached the annual peak t in fiscal 1992 under president bush's father, president bush i.

you would never think that by listening to the propaganda on the other side of the aisle. we've overregulated, supposedly, and we've spent -- cost businesses to spend so much on these regulations when again when we look at the facts, this is not true. eat your words. even former reagan treasury official, bruce bartlett, quoted "the wall street journal" saying the main reason u.s. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand. rather than the uncertainty over government policies. so you can grow as many horns as you want around the president and onto the president. once again, look at the facts and the statistics. more regulations at this point when former president bush was the president, bush ii.

it is ironic that the majority's adjusting health reform to pay f this legislation. you condemn the health act and then you take the money from the health act to pay for this act. that is a ponzi scheme if i ever heard one. thmajority already voted to real health reform. yet, to pay for this legislation, which is a separate piece of legislation, health reform must be in place for 10 years. how do they do that? they get rid of the health care act. well, they're trying to, anyway, and they usehe dime for the first 10 years to pay for the first bill. how do you do that? i'm anxious to see hoyou do this. just as their 2012 budget was paid for by health reform savings -- we've discussed this

in the budget committee -- this bill is again paid for by the health reform which they want to annihilate. if the majority is against the health reform bill, perhaps they should stop making their agenda so dependent upon it. while i support h.r. 674, we cannot pat oursves on the back and claim victory, that this is a victory for jobs. congress must do much more. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulson, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. paulsen: mr. speaker, i rise in favor of h.r. 674, a bill that would repeal this 3% withholding rule for private contractors iluding hospitals that accept medicare and

mecaid payments and even those who provide lunches for schools. this is a bill where republicans and democrats are working together as presiden obama singled out this provision as burdensome to our nation's job creators. he proposed delaying this rule. you know, the fact that this rule continues to be delayed, has not been implemented since first created in 2005, shows how truly a bad idea it is. can he should not delay it. we should repeal it immediately. i've spoken with many small businesses in my district that have been -- that will be negative impactly by this law because the profit margin for many of these companies that have government contracts is right around 3%. one minnesota company, valley paving, says withholding 3% -- the new 3% withholding law would be catastrophic on their balance sheets mean covering costs, paying bills and just covering operating costs would be a challenge. and as they point out, during these hard economic times,

withholding more money from small businesses like themselves that they most likely will not be able to update their equipment, not grow as fast and not hire more people. mr. speaker, this goes against everything that washington should be doing, giving our employers certainty to create more jobs. this law needs to be repealed. another contractor in my district, hard drives, incorporated, pointed out the federal government does not need to be playing banker with our earned income. this law may sound like a good idea on paper but this will be disastrous. implementing it for the department of defense alone is estimated to cost about $17 billion over five years. and here's the irony, mr. speaker. the program is going to -- is forecast to bring in a little over $11 billion across the whole spectrum of government, so the program is going to cost more to implement than it will take in. i strongly support this commonsense approach and bipartisan support to adopt this.

i ask for support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i don't know if the majority has any further speakers. mr. herger: i'm prepared to close. mr. levin: all right, i'll close. mr. herger: happy to reserve. mr. levin: i support this legislation. it should not have been passed in the first place. it was not vetted effectively by the then majority. it's time we support this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: and i request unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the president and executive office of the president. the spker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. herger: in this letter from

the president, the administration -- just to quote from it -- the administration supports passage of h.r. 674 which would repeal a 3% withholding on certain payments made to provide contractors by federal, state and local government entities. the effect of the repeal of the withholding requirement would to avoid a decrease in crash flow to these contractors which would allow them to retain these funds anuse them to create jobs and pay suppliers. mr. speaker, jobs are the number one priority of the american people and bs should be thnumber one priority of this congress. many itiatives that are built as, quote, creating jobs, are controversial. this is not. we're repealing a tax that hurts small businesses, and that will cost the government more to implement than it

collects. this is a win-win-w for businesses, workers, local public services and taxpayers. i urge all members to vote to repeal the 3% withholding tax and create new jobs >> last week, secretary of state clinton traveled to islamabad to talk about taking more aggressive action against the haqqani network. secretary quinn was on capitol hill today talking about her trip and outlining the foreign policy priorities. that is next on c-span. then a number of military generals discuss budget cuts and military readiness. >> although this headline proved false, dewey's dp by harry truman was iconic, and he continued to impact political history. this week on the contenders,

follow the career of thomas dewey, a dominant force as three times governor, including national politics in the elections of dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. live from the roosevelt hotel in new york city, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend on book tiki, general -- on "book tv." the unraveling of the u.s. auto industry during the 2008 financial crisis. an interview in examination of race, identity, politics, and being black in america today. we will featured authors and literary sites from around the

city of knoxville, tennessee. >> next, secretary of state hillary clinton cautioned congress about cutting spending in afghanistan and pakistan. she is asked about the u.s. withdrawal from iraq. secretary clinton testified before the house foreign affairs committee. the hearing is about 2 hours 15 minutes.

>> the committee will come to order. after recognizing -- i will recognize the chairman and ranking member of the middle east and south asia subcommittee for three minutes each for their statements. we will then hear from our witness, the distinguished secretary of state crit welcome home, and happy belated birthday. she will summarize her prepared statement before we move to the questions and answers with members under the five minute rules. members may have five days to insert statements and questions for the record, subject to the rules. we are getting started right away because we will have the votes. we like to be interrupted because of the democratic process.

madam secretary, welcome to our committee. we are pleased to have you here to assess u.s. policy in progress in afghanistan and pakistan. in 2009, president obama initiated a surge in afghanistan, resulting in approximately 90,000 u.s. troops there now. in the review the next year, the president noted that ultimately, it is go the afghans who must secure their country and afghans who must build their nation. it will take time to ultimately defeat al qaeda and remains are ruthless and resilience enemy, bent on attacking our country. make no mistake, we are going to remain relentless in disrupting and dismantling that terrorist

organization. however, president obama announced the new withdrawal of 10,000 u.s. troops from afghanistan by this year's end, with another 23,000 to be withdrawn by the rather curious date of september 2012. therefore, madam secretary, we must ask, where are we in achieving the strategic objectives outlined by the president? progress in the fight is undeniable, but our gains remain fragile. on the one hand, the u.s. is negotiating with the haqqani network, and on the other, we are attempting to destroy the haqqani network. there have been unwelcome developments since the president's announcement four months ago, such as the multiple high-profile assassination of major leaders in afghanistan. turnover to afghan security forces remains a significant challenge and some of the key contested areas, and on the counter narcotics front, the un office on drugs and crime reported a 7% increase in opium

poppy crop cultivation, citing the links between in security and opium cultivation. this leads to the broader question, what are the priorities for advancing our national security interests in afghanistan and pakistan? i remain troubled by iran threatening in afghanistan. what additional pressure are bringing to bear to offset the iranian influence in afghanistan? the most important long-term aspects of the american relationship with afghanistan today is the strategic partnership declaration under negotiation. during the negotiations over the strategic framework agreement, the previous administration extensively engage in consulted the congress and a bipartisan manner. we are disappointed that a similar level of outrage,

consultation, and transparency on this critical issue has been decidedly absent on the current afghanistan negotiations. i am capitalizing on your appearance today to secure information on the agreement being negotiated. what are our priority components of this? the anticipate a total withdrawal like we are about to do in iraq, or will we remain until we train and perhaps have a counter-terrorism presence? how will it address critical weaknesses within the political system such as too much power concentrated in the presidency and overdependence on foreign aid. what reforms are we requesting to fix these laws? are we insisting on the right to pursue insurgents to threaten us and our interest? are we preserving our tactical and operational flexibility? the afghan government bus be pushed to make the necessary steps to become a reliable partner for the u.s. over the

long term, and i know that you know that as well. too much american blood and treasure have been invested in afghanistan for us to walk away or have a government that threatens american interests. turning to pakistan, our relations continue to suffer from -- first there was the bitter raymond davis affair involving the u.s. embassy worker who shot and killed two pakistani man he believed were robbing him. the ultimate disgrace was the discovery of osama bin laden inside pakistan and living adjacent to a pakistani military facility. now receive a brazen attacks against the u.s. embassy and other u.s. targets afghanistan. our two countries are at crossroads. we cannot sustain a partnership with islamabad if it pursues policies that are hostile to u.s. interests and jeopardize

american lives. legislation developed in our committee and carried by the appropriations committee put staff conditions on u.s. assistance to pakistan funded through state department accounts. pakistan's security establishment must work more closely with us to eliminate al qaeda and its affiliates while cooperating more fully with our goal to help stabilize afghanistan. can the relationship be salvaged? can our strategic objectives in afghanistan and pakistan be brought into better alignment? it is are to be optimistic. all the options on the table appeared deeply and appetizing. all run the risk of being counterproductive. madam secretary, we look to you to help clarify for us the strategic choices that we, pakistan, and afghanistan pace -- phase that is profoundly challenging time for the future of peace and stability in south asia. we are especially interested in

hearing about your very recent trips to the region. i thank you for appearing before our committee today. i look forward to working with you to advance our critical national-security interests in this increasingly pivotal region. i yield back the balance of my time and i am pleased to yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> before i start, i would like to let the committee know that our former colleague passed away on tuesday. he served seven terms in congress. most of that time he chaired the africa subcommittee of this committee, and we will remember his dedication to africa. he authored the sanctions legislation again sell stock as apartheid government, the effort to override president reagan's veto of that legislation. he retired from congress in

1992, but as we all know, he stayed deeply engaged in african affairs, serving as special clinton's -- president clinton's special envoy. we not only lost a man who made a difference in public policy, but a friend with a profound mind and an engaging in charming wit, thank you, madam chairman. thank you also for calling this important hearing on the administration's strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. i would like to begin by commending the secretary clinton for the leadership that she and the president exhibited on libya. as a result of your efforts, we were able to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of unimaginable proportions and ultimately create the conditions for the libyan people to oust one of the world's most brutal dictators. secretary clinton, you have just

returned from a trip to afghanistan and pakistan, so this is a good time to explore what remains one of the most important and complex foreign policy challenges of our time. in 2009 when the obama administration took office, i was encouraged by his commitment to providing sufficient resources to our military forces, diplomats and aid workers in afghanistan and renewing our partnership with the civilian leadership of pakistan. however, as i have communicated to you in recent months, i am deeply concerned about our rapidly deteriorating relations with islamabad and how that impacts our efforts in afghanistan. soon after the bin laden rate, pakistani intelligence tip of military operatives on pakistani soil. factories that are making bombs to kill u.s. troops. more recently, apple mullen

asserted that the haqqani network, believed to be responsible for the truck bomb that wounded 77 american soldiers and the september 13 attack against the u.s. embassy in kabul is a veritable army of pakistan's isi. this behavior must stop. in 1957, president eisenhower remarked that the united states was "doing practically nothing for pakistan except in the form of military aid." he voiced concern that the american commitment to pakistan's military was perhaps the worst kind of plan and decision we could have made. it was a terrible error, but we

now seem hopelessly involved in it. sadly, these words remain true today. given the current climate, i support the administration's decision to paul's security assistance to islamabad until pakistan shows real progress in combating terrorist groups. i believe we should read by way of military aid to islamabad to ensure it is meeting its intended purpose. at the same time, i think it would be a terrible mistake to slash our economic assistance to pakistan. it is in our long-term interest to support the development of civil society and democratic institutions. these are the critical building blocks of a peaceful and prosperous pakistan and ultimately a stable afghanistan and south asia. we must continue trying to find ways to partner with the people pakistan who have become a casualty of misguided policies pursued by pakistan's military

and by civilian leader seemingly unwilling to leave. pakistanis are reminded of these failings every day by constant energy shortages and a never- ending financial crisis and rising extremas and. the united states cannot solve all pakistan's many problems, but we can make a difference. the recently completed renovation of a dam funded by the united states means that 1 million more pakistanis will have access to electricity. we should also take steps to strengthen pakistan's private sector by creating an american. i know you have some practic -- express support for these concepts. it is critical that any assistance we provide be sustainable and completely transparent both to the pakistanis and the american people who pay for it. this is true not just in pakistan but with all our

international programs. to those that suggest foreign assistance is a luxury we can no longer for, i say america cannot afford a course of isolation and retreat. rather than making indiscriminate cuts, we need to reform our system is to make it more efficient and effective and better at serving our national interests. that me touch briefly on transition and reconciliation in afghanistan. . we must ensure the gains made after 10 years of fighting will not be lost. the strategic partnership declaration, which i look forward to learning more about, will serve as an important symbol of our long-term commitment to the people of afghanistan. it is critical to regional security and a successful transition. while i appreciate the progress being made to cement our relationship with kabul.

as much as we all want to -- world war ii end and to bring our troops home, i am concerned that allowing these extremist groups to assume leadership positions in the government would threaten the gains we have made on counter-terrorism and counter narcotics. even if these groups were sincere in their desire to reconcile, and i am skeptical that they are, pakistan remains this boiler. i think we have a very different definition of stability. ultimately, we will not be successful in afghanistan, militarily or politically a less pakistan plays a constructive role in allowing afghans to determine the future afghanistan for themselves. madam secretary, how will we ever succeed in afghanistan as long as pakistan provides sanctuary for afghan insurgents? once again, i thank you for

being here today, and i look forward to your testimony. because a bill of mine is in a subcommittee roundtable today, there are times when i may have to leave, but i will certainly come back and read your testimony as well. >> i thank the gentleman for his opening statement. the chair of the subcommittee on the middle east and south asia. >> thank you for calling this important hearing. although does cannot express topic of our hearing, i would like to say a word on iraq. i am very concerned by the president's reece an announcement of a complete withdrawal by the end of the year. fulfilling a campaign promise at the expense of american national security interests is at best strategic neglect and at worst, downright irresponsible. it seems painfully clear to me

and to many analysts that the iraqi army is not yet prepared to defend iraq from the threat posed by its nefarious neighbor to the east. the administration's current policy appears to focus on normalizing our relationship with iraq, but the situation in iraq is not normal. indeed, i fear that our objective is no longer to ensure iraq is stable, but merely to withdraw our forces by the end of this year in order to meet a political time line. saying that iraq is secure, stable, and self-reliant is -- as denis mcdonough recently did does not make it so. to borrow at " from you, when you were serving in the other body, it requires the willing suspension of disbelief to accept that withdrawing our forces from iraq at a time when iranian agents seek to harm at every turn our country and its allies advances our strategic

interests. although i understand that iraq is a sovereign country, i believe there is much more that this administration could have done to secure and more realistic presence beyond the end of this year. accordingly, i would like to echo senator lieberman is recent call to reopen negotiations with the iraqis. it would be a failure of a colossal proportions to withdraw our forces before iraq is ready to stand on its own. this decision also offers a disturbing insight into the administration's definition of conditions based withdraw all, which is of course its policy in afghanistan. when asked recently whether or not leaving a residual force in iraq endangers hard-fought gains, he responded i think they should have raised those issues when president bush agreed to withdraw troops by the end of this year. is this what we should expect is this what we should expect of an