for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday next for moing hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. >> president obama on energy policy and prices. then john boehner's news briefing with reporters. >> in march, 1979, c-span began televising the house of representatives, and today our content and public affairs is available on tv, radio, and online. >> when we put the force together, i used every one of

those youngsters somebody who i felt responsible for. they were going into a very dangerous conflict and he wanted to give them every benefit to allow them to come home safely. i am more distressed that there are veterans. we have to keep that as an operating hypothesis. >> c-span, created by america plus cable companies as a public service. >> john allen believes afghan president hamid karzai is committed to partnering with u.s. and nato forces for the

long term. the recent events have adversely affected the core of the relationship between the two countries. testimony before the senate armed services committee is three and a half hours. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> good morning, everybody. the committee meets to receive testimony on the progress of the campaign in afghanistan. our witnesses are dr. jim miller, acting undersecretary of defense for policy, and general john allen, from the assistance force and commander of u.s. forces, afghanistan.

a warm welcome. i want to interrupt to take care of some nominations, because we have a quorum present, and i will ask the committee to consider a list of 246 pending military nominations that have been all before the committee. is there a motion to favorably report the 246 military nominations? is there a second? hollen favre say -- all in favor sayin aye. the motion carries trade the troops are carrying out their missions professionally. general allan, please pass along our unwavering support for men and women serving in afghanistan. our gratitude for their courageous and dedicated service and the support of their families. talking about families, you have

with you your wife, kathy, and bobbi.dydaughter, i think i got the next up this morning. we're delighted they are here. >> thank you, senator. >> the success of our mission depends on building the capacity security forces to take the lead for security in their country. yes-afghan partnering has been critical to the mission, from native training missions to partnering with units in the field and on up to advisors in ministries and. that has been tested by the disturbing events in the last few weeks, following the violence following the and regrettable burnings of korans. tragic and incomprehensible killing of 16 civilians apparently by a u.s. soldier has further strained

relationship between united states and afghanistan. last week president obama and president karzai reaffirmed the common commitment to completing the process of transition in afghanistan. in a coordinated press statement, the two presidents reiterated their support for the approach agreed upon at the two dozen -- 2010 nato summit in lisbon. this calls for an afghan security forces to assume full responsibility for security across the country by the end of 2014. this morning i want to focus on a number -- on another part of that statement. both presidents said they shared the goal of building capable afghan security forces so afghans are increasingly in charge of their own security. "with the lead for combat

operations shifting to afghan forces with u.s. forces in support in 2013." general allen assured me that nato's transfer of full responsibility for security across afghanistan in 2014 always assumed shifting the lead in combat operations to afghans in all five so-called areas of afghanistan by 2013. that is good news to me. i say good news because it has always been my belief the success in afghanistan depends on building the capacity of the afghan army and police said that afghans are in the lead in providing security for their own country, not isap forces, and to ensure that that happens by continuing to reduce our forces.

the afghans want their own forces providing for their own security. that is what we heard when we met with village elders at their council meeting in helmand province 2 1/2 years ago. when asked how long u.s. forces should stay, one elder told me only long enough to train our security forces and then leave. after that you will be welcome to visit us, not as soldiers, but as guests. i hope our witnesses will explain in some detail this morning how the 2013 and 2014 dates are in sync as well as how the process of phased transition agreed to by all in lisbon will unfold over the coming months and years. i hope youaen, explain that transition to an afghan lead.

[no audio] when the transition is not to be completed until 2014. in addition we need to know what this transition means for the mission of u.s. and coalition forces. secretary panetta has said that as security forces assumed the lead, isap will move to a support role, and although they will remain fully combat capable. it appears even though afghan security forces will be in the lead starting in 2013, combat operations in parts of afghanistan, while the transition process continues to completion in 2014. i also understand the plan

after 2014 is for the afghan security forces to receive coalition support such as the joystick and intelligence support and u.s. special operations forces will likely be partnered with their afghan counterparts in conducting counterterrorism operations. we also need to know what the transition process needs for the pace of u.s. troop reductions in afghanistan. last june, president obama said after the 33,000 troops u.s. search force was brought home by the end of this summer, u.s. troop levels will continue to draw down "at a steady pace." yet, the fiscal 2013 defense budgets for overseas contingency

operations is based on an assumption of 68,000 u.s. troops remaining in afghanistan throughout the 2013 fiscal year. we will be asking you whether you support continuing to drop down u.s. forces at a steady pace, as the president said, after the 68,000 troop level is reached by september, and we would also like to know when you expect to make your recommendation, general, on post-surge reduction of forces in afghanistan starting after september of this year. given the importance of having capable afghan national security forces take over the security lead throughout afghanistan, when i was surprised and i was concerned about news accounts of a u.s. proposal to reduce the size of the afghan forces by a third after 2014. apparently based on questions of

the affordability of sustaining a larger afghan forces. according to a "wall street journal" , the united states proposes reducing the size of the afghan security forces to 230,000 after 2014. that article cited the tenants general bolger lieutenant general boler say this proposal is based in part of what the international community will provide financially. i believe our commanders should be providing their ad in the fairy of advice based on what they believe the afghan securities will need to successfully maintain security, not based on their gas about affordability two years down the road. but in my view, it is cost- effective to sustain a larger

afghan security force when compared to the costs in billions of dollars and the lives of military men and women of having u.s. coalition forces maintain security in afghanistan. it may be penny wise, but it would be pound foolish to put at risk the hard-fought gains we and our coalition partners and the afghans have achieved rather than support an afghan security force that is right size to provide security to the afghan people and to prevent a taliban return to power. our relationship with the afghanistan will continue beyond completion of the security transition in 2014. the strategic partner agreement being negotiated between united states and afghanistan will play an important role in defining the shape of that bilateral relationship. the recent memorandum of understanding on detention operations signed by general allan and afghan defense

ministers at just one of the main obstacles to including the strategic partner agreement. another issue in those strategic partnership terps is the conduct of night raids by coalition and afghan forces for the afghan officials have called for an end to night raids, alleging such operations are destructive to afghan lives and lead to civilian casualties. what is often ignored in the united states and in afghanistan is that afghan soldiers participate in all my great operations. in december, general allan issued an isap tactical directive on operations to minimize the disruption and concern caused by night operations to law-abiding afghan citizens. that directive clearly states that all coalition night operations, are partnered operation,s, "carried out

specially trained afghan soldiers and policemen who are increasingly taking on responsibility for the command and control of night operations with a view to transitioning this responsibility to them entirely as their capacity develops." it directs that the afghan security forces on night raids should be encouraged to take the lead, to be the first to make contact with local afghans in their homes, and be the first force seen and heard by local cultures. searches are always to be conducted by afghan security forces when available, and female personnel are always to be used for searching women and men -- women and children. 30 states,allen's successful transition will be characterized by afghan partners taking increasing responsibility for the planning and command and control of these

night operations. i would appreciate our witnesses sharing with this committee the facts relative to the conduct of the night raids and the ongoing talks to reach an understanding on those operations. i understand that resolving this issue could help clear the way for concluding a strategic partnership agreement by the nato-chicago summit in may. many challenges remain in afghanistan. it should not be understated. much will depend on countering the cross-border threat of insurgents fighting refuges and havens.ju much is going to depend on the karzai government improving the delivery of services and economic development, taking on corruption and providing increased transparency and the concept of credible provincial and national elections. despite the challenges, our

troops' morale remains high and they want to see that mission through to completion. they deserve our support and they have our support. senator mccain? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank our witnesses for appearing before us and for their continued service to our nation. i appreciate dr. miller, lending his expertise, and i obviously want to recognize general allen, be the only witness before this committee his congressional testimony qualifies him as r and r of his day job. and the general allen beat the first to save what inspires him every day and long into the night is the selfless example set by the troops he leads. i know much of the recent news from afghanistan has been discouraging, and that has only increased the desire of a war- wary public to and our mission

there. however, none of these -- this change is of vital u.s. national security interests that are at stake in afghanistan, where does it mean the war is lost. it is not. there is still a realistic path to success if the right decisions are made in the coming months. painful lessons we learned on september 11, two dozen one, remains as true today as then -- what happens in afghanistan has a direct impact on our safety here at home. if we quit afghanistan again as we did in the 1990's, and abandoned the million athabaskans -- afghans, the consequences will be disastrous for us both. it does not have to be this way. our troops have made significant military progress on the ground in afghanistan. four years ago southern afghanistan was overrun by the

taliban, and our coalition- backed the resources and strategy necessary to break the momentum. today the situation has reversed. our effort to build the afghan national security forces has been completely overhauled. this results in growing numbers of afghan unit capable of leading the fight. if you afghan soldiers who turn their weapons on our troops should not obscure the larger fact that hundreds of thousands of afghans are fighting every day as our faithful allies in a common fight against al qaeda and the taliban, and these patriots are being wounded and killed in far greater numbers than our forces. this should give us hope that our common goal in afghanistan that can secure and government itself remains achievable over time. to sustain this process, it is critical that president obama

resist the short-sighted calls for additional troop reductions, which are a guarantee of failure. our forces are currently slated to drop down to 68,000 by september, a faster pace than commanders recommended, which is significantly increasing the risk for our mission. at a minimum, there should be a pause after september to assess the impact of the draw down. be better to maintain the 60,000 forces to the next fighting season, probably longer are. at the strategic level our efforts are undermined by the perception that the united states will abandon afghanistan once again. discreet incentives for the taliban to keep fighting, for the pakistan army to hedge its bets, and for afghan allies to make the section -- decisions based on fears of what a post-

american future will bring trade we must reverse this dynamic, and the best way to do so is by including a strong agreement with afghanistan which would serve as a concrete basis for a long-term political, economic, and military relationship. just two weeks ago, one of the two major obstacles to this agreement was resolved as the u.s. reaches an understanding on a timetable for handing over detention operations. this provides a reason for optimism a similar resolution can be fannound. in fact, this transition is occurring in practice with these issues resolved, the strategic agreement could provide a framework for an enduring u.s. military commitment to afghanistan beyond 2014, including joint operation facilities and long term support

for the more than 350,000 afghan national security forces that are necessary to secure the country. this plan should include an enduring presence of u.s. special operations forces to continue counter-terrorism corp. with our afghan persons -- partners treat such an agreement would encourage our allies to make long-term commitments. this is the right way to set the conditions under which our forces can draw down and hand to lead to the afghans. the sheet partnership would make clear to the taliban and that they cannot wait us out and win on the battlefield, posturing reconciliation on favorable terms to the afghan government and to us. it would demonstrate to pakistan's par make the continued support for the taliban is a losing battle that will only leave islamabad more isolated and less secure, and it

would give afghan leaders the reassurance to fight corruption and government better. this agreement can change the entire narrative and the region from eminent international abandonment to and during international commitment. all of this is an achievable if the right decisions are made in the months ahead. far from being an salvageable, or not worth the effort, this war is still hours to win. after all we have given all the precious lives we have lost with all the vital interests we have at stake, now is not the time to quit. it is a time to recommit ourselves to being successful. we owe nothing less to the tens of thousands of americans who are risking their lives every day for this mission and for us. i think you, mr. chairman, and i think the witnesses. >> a delighted to have you with us today, and you are our acting

undersecretary of defense for policy, and we now call upon you. dr. miller? >> thank you. members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. i am pleased and honored to be here with our outstanding commander in afghanistan, general john allen. objectives remain to deny safe haven to al qaeda. this administration is committed to meeting these core objectives, and while we have faced and will face serious challenges, our strategy is succeeding. our efforts against al qaeda have been successful. although the job is not finished, there is no doubt that we have degraded out cutup's capacity. as a result of the search launched in 2009, which have broken and reversed the momentum. the security forces are

increasingly capable and in the lead. our forces are performing extremely well as i saw firsthand in a trip to afghanistan, i took two weeks ago. where are well into a process of transitioning to leadership as we -- almost 50% of afghans live in areas that are in a transition process. as a milestone in 2013 they will be in the lead for providing security across afghanistan. u.s. and coalition forces will be in a support role which will take the number of forums. this will include force is partnered with afghan units, and it will include the smaller footprint associated with forces in a train and advise and assist role. by the end of 2014, they will be responsibility for the security

of their country. by that time u.s. and coalition forces will have moved to a much smaller presence. members of the committee, there is no doubt afghanistan war has been a tough fight. in the last several weeks they have been particularly difficult. the inappropriate handling of korans was an error that while unintentional sent the wrong signal. this unfortunate act stands in contrast to the many years during which u.s. forces had demonstrated a deep respect for the religious practices of the afghan people. the afghans and we have had to respond to the harvick killings of 16 civilians. the department of defense is conducting a full investigation of this senseless act.

justice will be done at any responsibile will be held accountable. we will have to work to these incidents and challenges. it is critical that these occurrences not blind us to this progress that we have made. from 2010 to 2011, attacks in afghanistan were down 9%. this trend has continued this year. in january and a camera, and the attacks are down a further 22%. in october 2008, there were only 140,000 afghans in the ansf. today there are approximately 330,000. we expect to reach our goal of three and a 52,000 afghans ahead of the october, two dozen 12,

target date. today 90% of coalition operations are carried out in partnership with the ansf, and they are in the lead for more than 40% of operations. we are negotiating a sheet partnership between the united states and afghanistan that will frame our relationship. this partnership will demonstrate we've learned .essons from 1989 in partnership with president karzai and the afghan government, we completed a crucial milestone when general allen signed an agreement. we are working with afghans on a memorandum of understanding of night operations which when completed will further strings than our partnership. concluding a strategic

partnership will send a signal that united states remains committed to afghan security. this will continue beyond our planned transition in 2014. as the president said, we will build an enduring partnership with afghanistan so is never again a source of attacks against america. the need for"our commitment is h transition, we will finish the job to help to create a secure afghanistan or four sheriff security - -for chiefs security ." it is by no means certain that this reconciliation effort will bear fruit in the near term but it is very much in our interest to try. as secretary clinton has said, any negotiated outcome must be

our line for reconciliation and insurgents must renounce violence, break all ties with al qaeda, and abide by the constitution of afghanistan. success depends on the support of afghanistan's neighbors, particularly pakistan. pakistan has legitimate interests that must be understood and addressed and pakistan has responsibilities. most importantly, it needs to take steps that militant and extremist groups cannot continue to find safe haven in pakistani territory. pakistan has powerful incentives to do so. in 2011, some 2000 attacks resulted in about 2400 deaths, mostly from ied's. mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. the fight makes sure that the terrorist network that struck in new york, washington d.c., and

the skies over pennsylvania would never be able to use afghanistan as their say short. thanks to the great courage and skill of the u.s. armed forces and our coalition partners, the strategy is working. while success is never guaranteed, we are on a path to meet our objectives to deny safe haven to al qaeda and deny the taliban the ability to overthrow the afghan government. i would like to thank the committee for your continued support in our effort in afghanistan and for your support for the great men and women of the armed forces. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. general allan. senator levin, thank you for this opportunity to discuss how our operations -- to discuss our operations in afghanistan. it is a pleasure to be here with our friend, dr. jim miller.

it has been a pleasure for me to get to know him over the last several weeks as he has been a very important ally of mine in helping to explain some of the policy issues with which we deal on a daily basis. let me begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to the support you provide to our vacant men and women. they are well-equipped, trained, and well-led is a great testament to the work of this committee and to the congress. on behalf of the troops and their families, thank you for all that you have done for them. in the past 8 months, i have walked the ground of afghanistan with many of those troops a long time with my friend, ambassador ryan crocker. i have met with most of the

leaders of the other nations involved. all through this, there has been in close consultation with afghan civilian and military leadership, most of whom has been enmeshed in this country's conflict. enmeshed in this conflict for well over 30 years. from those experiences, i can tell you unequivocally three things, first, we remain on track to ensure that afghanistan will no longer be a safe haven for al qaeda and will no longer be terrorized. we are well along in our progress to meet our summit commitment.

our troops know the difference is that they are making every day and the enemy feels that difference every day. to be sure, the last couple of months have been trying. the wake of the revolutions that american troops have mishandled religious texts. some of the protests have been violent and it occurred in various regions across afghanistan. 32 afghans lost their lives in these riots and even more were hurt. the coalition has lost 61 brave troops in action from six different nations and 13 of them were killed at the hands of what appears to be afghan security forces. some of them were motivated by the mishandling of religious materials.

each of these is heart wrenching and my thoughts and prayers go out to all of those that were affected by the violence. i assure you the relationship between the coalition and the afghan security forces remain strong. two weeks ago i was visiting with marines and with local afghan commanders in the wake of the koran burning incident. a young marine said he and his unit were told about the demonstrations by their afghan counterparts. the afghan troops told them "let us patrol outside of the wire for a couple of days. we have this for you." understand the gravity of the

risk, the afghans had assumed for them the marine had assumed that our afghan brothers were trying to protect us. this conveys the power of the brotherhood in arms forced in battles over the years. it speaks to the trust we have built with the afghans and to the shock absorbency of this relationship. we know that there is much hard and deadly work yet to be done and the progress his -- the progress is real. we have severely degraded the insurgents. as one afghan commander told me in the south in the later part of 2011, "this time around, the taliban was the way team -- away team." we have seriously degraded the taliban possibility to launch a spring offensive. they will come back to find many

of their caches empty, their strongholds untenable, or many of their foot soldiers absent. in kandahar, 50 former taliban decided to formally integrate into afghan society. when asked why they laid down their arms, they complained of the unrelenting pressure they were under. they said they found themselves up against capable afghan forces in greater numbers and with greater frequency. while they were willing to fight foreigners, they were unwilling to fight their afghan brothers, especially those that fought back with courage and skill because of the training that we have provided them. for the training that we provided them was critical to the mission. insurgencies have seldom been defeated by foreign forces. they have been beaten by indigenous forces.

they can only be achieved and then secured by afghan forces. transition is the linchpin of our strategy, not merely the way out. during the last 12 months, the afghan security forces have expanded to more than 330,000 and they will reach their full surge strength ahead of the scheduled deadline. the expansion and the professionals asian of the forces allowed them to recover the remaining 24,000 surge troops by this fall. this makes possible security transition to afghans in accordance with our summit commitments. security conditions remain very good in areas that have transitioned thus far.

later this year, afghan security forces are expected to send a security lead for 2/3 or possibly more of the afghan population. as a potential unifying influence in afghanistan, the afghan forces are better than we thought they were to be. they were better than they thought they could be. they are gaining more and more confidence and they are gaining more and more capability. in the past five months, 89% of the total conventional operation was partnered with conventional and afghan forces. 42% of the operations had afghans in the lead. coalition forces will remain combat ready.

afghan leadership is key. i can tell you that the afghans want to lead and they want responsibility that comes with it. our joint coalition off-again campaign plan from january 2012 until june of 2013 was conceived. this was developed and plan with afghans in the lead. they are truly emerging with a real defeat mechanism of this insurgency and increasingly as an emblem of national unity. this is essential for the long some security of afghanistan. we know that al qaeda and extremist networks still operate with impunity across the border in pakistan. this remains a resilient and

determined enemy and many of them will try to regain their lost ground this spring. we know that iran continues to support the insurgency and fuel the flames of violence. insurgents still rock afghan citizens of their faith in their government. this campaign has been long, it has been difficult, and it has been puzzling. there have been setbacks to be sure and we are experiencing them now and there will be more setbacks ahead. i wish i could tell you that this was simple, that progress could be easily measured. that is not the way of the counterinsurgencies. they are fraught with successes and setbacks which can exist in the same space and at the same

time. each must be seen in a larger context for the overall campaign and i believe that that campaign is on track. we are making a difference. i know this and our troops know this. i would like to take another moment of your time, mr. chairman, distinguished members, to end where i began, with our troops. thousands and thousands of american and coalition partners are bearing the weight of this conflict and to remember that there will be a number that will never return to their families. they are central to my every decision and to every word i speak. one of them, the young marine that was laid to rest at arlington cemetery, was a hero. he knew what he stood for and he knew his mission. he knew the risks and he knew he

might have to give his life for this cause for which we fight. sergeant williams prepared a letter for his family to be read in the event of his death and in it he said "there will be a child who will live because men left the security they enjoyed in their home country to come to his. this child will learn that a new school had been built and people walk history it's not worried about whether or not his leaders henchmen will come and kidnapped him. he will pursue every opportunity is hard to desire. he will have the gift of freedom that i have enjoyed for so long. if my life secures the safety of a child will one day change the world, it was all worth it." areconfident that americans safer today because of the

sacrifices of the magnificent men and women in uniform. i'm confident that we will prevail in this endeavor. i want to thank you for this opportunity for the time to speak before you today and for the support you provide to the young men and women of our armed forces for whom i am so privilege and honor to lead and i look forward to answer your questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your powerful, your clear, your moving statement. thank you for reading this letter to us.

let's do a seven minute round. we should be able to get in a first-round for everyone. >> general, let me start with you. did you support the decision to draw down the 33,000 surge force by the end of this summer and do you support that decision? >> i was on record as doing so before and i do still. >> does that reduction remain on pace and are we on track to withdraw the troops from that surge force? >> i will make the final decision. some of believe that that will leave us on track.

>> you intend to wait until after with the withdrawal of the surge forces to evaluate the situation on the ground. you can make the recommendations relative to the pace of further reductions. would you make a recommendation to the search force? >> that was before the recommendations. what do you think that is the best way? >> that is the best way to identify the state of the insurgency, the state of the full force to include the u.s. force but also to evaluate the operational requirements in order to make a comprehensive

recommendation. >> does that mean that it would be some time in the last three months of this year that you would make that recommendation. >> president obama and president karzai last week committed themselves to the first dates. the 2013 date when the lead of four combat operations will shift to afghan security forces with u.s. forces in support. is the 2013 timeframe for transitioning the lead for

combat operations, is that consistent with the lisbon plan for completing the transition for afghans having full responsibility for security throughout afghanistan? >> the summit envisaged that there would be several charges of the geography of afghanistan that would transition over time. we determined it would be five. the first is in transition now, the second has just begun, implementation, we are in the process of deliberating on the third. we anticipate that the fit and final will be announced by the president's -- by president karzai probably in the summer of 13.

technically, when at the fifth transition ultimately begins implementation, afghan security forces are in the lead for security across the country. that is a process which will continue, that leadership assisted by the isaf forces come out to the end of 2014, i hope that answers your question. >> that 2013, being in the lead is in the date for having full responsibility. is that correct? >> it is. >> according to a wall street journal article, they have proposed reducing the afghan security forces from the 352,000 goal to 230,000 after 2014

partly to reduce the costs of sustaining the afghan forces and the head of our training mission in afghanistan has cited and said that this is based upon what the international community will provide. as i said, this is cost- effective to sustain a larger security force when compared to the costs. that is a costs in both dollars and lives. it seems to me that given the fact that you and our military leaders agreed that the key to success of our mission in afghanistan is the transition of responsibility for the security of the afghan people to the afghan security forces. by the way, it is a position which i have wholeheartedly believed him right from the beginning and in your eloquent

statement today about transition as the linchpin, not merely the way out, is a very succinct and strong way of stating it. given the fact that the transition to a strong afghan security force is the key to success of this mission, why would it reduce the size of the army by a third? have you concluded that you should see the reduction of the afghan force by 1/3? >> the number 352 was the surge force and it was always intended that it would be a temporary number. the recovery would occur in some point in the future. the study which was undertaken

was to look at to the year 2017 and look at the various intelligence realities that the afghan national security forces could face potentially. that series of studies created a number of different force structures which we believe that we have had varying levels of capability based on the most likely enemy scenario. the sufficient capability, this had the correct balance of both afghan national police and a local presence. there are a number of different options and we are evaluating what those might be.

this was smaller than 230, which probably does not have the right capability, the right combination of capabilities. we thought that this force, which is a target number, this is not a specific objective at this time, was the right target given what we think will be the potential enemy scenario for 2017. >> there has been no decision to reduce the afghan forces below 350,000? >> i think that this will come both from the u.s. side and in consultation -- >> we have not decided that it should be reduced? >> i don't believe that we have. there are considerations. this is not a decision of the u.s. >> is it our position that should be reduced? >> we have not decided to what

level? >> not to a specific number. >> i would hope that would be carefully done and not be depended upon the financial issues. >> that is an important point. we will continue to monitor the quality metrics. this is a fully fielded. those will also be accompanied by a consistent evaluation of the security environment. that security environment and that would be the indicator of whether it should actually occur. this will be conditions based. i submit those metrics every six months. starting with the next set of matrix, that will be that -- we think that is what the scenario will be an evaluation that condition. there is an expectation that this will draw the forced out to a number that we think fits the

security environment. >> the conditions indicated that this is the right number, 325 is the right number. >> that is my hope. this is based on the intelligence scenarios and the analysis. we are looking for the right number. >> i sure would be interested in seeing those studies that bring you down to 231, or 236, because it would contradict any study that has been done in the past. either the past that these were flawed or inaccurate or the present study is flawed or inaccurate but it all fits into the scenario that concerns many of us and that is that the news

is dominated by how fast we can draw down and how much we will draw down and when we will draw down. you don't hear any more commitments to victory, we don't hear any more commitments to success. the taliban continues to hedge their bets. all they hear about is withdrawals and the pace of withdrawal. they know what is on the front page of the "new york times" which says the debate within the administration about the pace of the drawdown. not achieving goals and then drawing down, but how rapidly we can draw down. so, i am also interested in the fact that you cannot make a decision on force levels in the

year 2013 until the end of the year 2012? is that what you're telling us? >> i am telling you that after withdrawing 23,000 troops, after moving through after conducting operations during the fighting season, in the aftermath of that, i need to be able to evaluate whether that force structure at 68,050 thousand forces will be the kinds of combinations plus the progress that has been made in combination to handle what i think will be the operational environment of 2013. >> you have no opinion at the end of march 2012 as to what our military presence would be in 2013? >> what my opinion at this particular juncture -- >> what is your opinion at this particular juncture? >> we will be significant combat power in 2013. >> like 68,000?

>> that is a good number but i know the president some analysis. >> in response to the chairman's question about that you supported the past reductions in forces that have been made, you supported those decisions. did you also said it increased the risk? >> i did, sir. >> does it surprise you when president karzai starts looking at a situation where the u.s. leaves a neighborhood, does it surprise you when the isi continues their support of the taliban and killing americans when we are sounding an uncertain trumpet, general? >> there might be an uncertain trumpet but i'm very clear that i believe that we will be successful in this campaign. >> i do, too, militarily.

a strategic partnership agreement is close to being concluded? >> we have not begun the final negotiations on the strategic partnership agreement yet, sir. we think it is close. >> thank you. i would like to especially thank the administration for their efforts in this but i would also like to think my two colleagues. there is no american that knows more aboutmore about this and sr gramm does. i am very grateful for his participation in the whole detainee issue in senator lieberman's unpopular position on this issue. the strategic partnership agreement seems to me is more

important than an agreement about detainee's and night raids. their means there is a commitment on the part of the united states. tremaine a presence in afghanistan for the -- to remain a presence in afghanistan for the foreseeable future. >> in maybe led the most important outcomes in recent years. >> you are working hard? >> we are. >> i shared this view. it is critically important to reach the partnership. he has stated we had an enduring commitment to afghanistan. this obey a concrete example of that. there will be a lot of work to

do after that. >> you were encouraged by recent progress? >> if yes, understanding the tumultuous last couple of months. i'm very encouraged by recent progress. >> do you believe the two remaining major obstacles to success in afghanistan are corruption and the karzai government and continued sanctuary and support for the taliban by pakistan? >> can i hear that again? >> the two remaining major obstacles to successful in afghanistan, and the corruption and in karzai government and the pakistani sanctuary and assistance to the taliban? >> i do. >> have you seen any change in those two major obstacles? >> i think we have done good work with the afghan government

of late. he has appointed a presidential executive committee to partner with the international community on the issues of reclaiming borders in airports. that is an important move. >> had the seen any change in the effort? >> i have not. >> the american people were wary. public opinion shows that most americans want out of afghanistan and into this decade lot of conflict. more than 1000 lives. if he had a chance to speak to the american people about what

is at stake here and your view of this conflict, what would you say to them? >> the first thing i would do is thank them for their incredible support to the men and women and to our services. they have come together to accomplice the mission which is to deny al qaeda safe havens and deny all excited the opportunity to overthrow the government of afghanistan. i would say to them that the investments in and this campaign by the united states has been to shake that insurgency and build an afghan security force that would ultimately take over the counter insurgency campaign to become the defeat mechanism. that is happening. that transition is occurring.

it is an example of the successful outcome and the investment that has been made by the other countries. it denies the taliban the opportunity to overthrow this government. it permits the afghanistan to sink into the darkness of taliban that could welcome al qaeda back into afghanistan. they made no effort to separate themselves. it could become a washing pad for international terrorism. the progress that has been made within the afghan national security forces pushes back the momentum of the taliban to deny safe havens. it does been remarkable. because of the sacrifices. >> i thank you. i hope the american people could hear those words as you

articulated them. >> thank you. thank you. thank you for your extraordinarily service. >> one of the most compelling statement i have ever heard, which reflects for your a profound appreciation to the men and women you lead. thank you very much. >> i am willing to oversimplify what your operational challenges are. they seem to be two. one is to be able to bed at nato advisers with afghani forces as they take the lead. the outbreak 247 -- 24/7. both of those issues have been

shaken by incidents of by discussions in the last few weeks. with respect to the night raids, there has been some discussion of authorizing raids into afghani procedures and warrants. it would seriously impede your ability to operate. is that something that is being done? >> would undermine the ability to operate? >> that memorandum of understanding that we not in pete the contributions of those operations made every single day in the battlefield. just as their publishing and other areas, afghans take over a greater lead with this.

we would acknowledge the constitution. we go to a warrant based system. this was successful because we were able to streamline the judicial process in ways that supported the operations rather than impede it the operations. we are just beginning the negotiations. i am sure you that we will get this right. the outcome will be night operations that continue to contribute to this campaign with afghan's deeply in the process. it is important to the march that we have undertaken. >> is it that they would not be

inhibited by potential positions ta? >> their operating 24 hours a day. there are other networks that we require. >> let me turn to the other issue of american forces. has this giving me a pause to rethink how you do this? that only in terms of the safety and nato personnel but the recent tenants -- rescinded in s of populations? >> it is a potential challenge.

you are correct. i am going to watch this closely. we have taken a lot of measures to reduce marine on blue attacks. i take heart in the success of the afghan local police as potentially an indicator of how this will unfold. across afghanistan there are multiple tens of forces which are special operators and batted across the country. there are over 1000 police. if it is done right, and i believe we'll do this correctly, i think that we can continue the process of the platform and

advisers into these formations, undertaking the measures from protection we now have under way. >> they asked about some of the major challenges ahead including other factors that maybe but under the category. we could have tactical success on the ground. most experts suggest that will not be successful. >> one and the tensions in afghanistan has been between a central government.

you aware of the constitutional changes that the government can be more effectively centralized? the afghanis can agree to decentralize? it might be one way to facilitate this tax any comment? >> let me answer in two parts. the first is to say that the government is going to remain critical to the success of afghanistan over time. the ward needs to continue to deal with minimizing corruption and providing strong institutions will be vital. there is much work to do. we will continue to work on institution building.

that sister from the department of defense and from other agencies -- that is true from the department of defense and from other agencies as we look to strengthen them over time. the second point would be what i observed when i was there two weeks ago. it was the importance of district level and village level leadership. there is the role of the moscow and the -- mosque and the important role of governors and chief of police. what we are looking at for success is a model that includes a strong government in kabul where government is brought down over time and they have resources to provide an avenue of research is back down

to the local levels. at the same time, they continue to build from the grass roots at the district level and build strong governments. it is not an either or. it is a both. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next is senator chambliss. >> thank you for your service. you have picked up right where general petraeus left off. we thank you for a the kind of leadership the provide it. just following up on what senator reid was talking about with respect to night raids. having been in afghanistan in number of times and visited with the troops, particularly afghan

troops to carry out the night raids in a professional way that has minimized even the rest of civilian casualty, it is pretty important as we move toward ultimately achieving the victory there. i am really concerned about this potential shift to a warrant based approach. will that shift increase the possibility of civilian casualties and our ability to fix and finished the target? >> an important question. i belief that if we do this right it will not impede the operations nor will it increase civilian casualties. i presume you understand we are doing about 2400 special operations a year. had about 2200 night

operations and about 200 of them we did not fire eight shots. 50's arm of them we got the targeted individual. 83% roughly of the night operations we that either the primary target foreign associates. there was less than 1.5% civilian casualties. i do not diminish any civilian casualties. every one of those is tragic. after 9200 night operations, at 27 people were killed or wounded in night operations. that would argue for the power of nights operations reducing

civilian casualties. that is in my mind as we go through the process of negotiating an outcome for the afghan is asian -- afghanization of night operations. >> they seem to only highlights the negative aspects. they have made a conscious decision to overtly seek reconciliation with the taliban. part of that action on the part of the a demonstration has been to offer up by the get mel -- up 5 gitmo detainees at the five they would like to have released.

the united states is serious about negotiation regarding reconciliation. i am personally offended by any negotiations with terrorists who are killing our men and women. i am really offended that there would be some conversation about releasing five of the meanest nasties killers as they show of good faith, particularly to have the house in the country where our experiences have not been very good. i understand that negotiations had moved to the department of defense from the state department. i understand from comments made by secretary panetta yesterday

that these transfers are now on hold because as some of us suspected, it now -- the illustration doesn't have confidence that the government will be capable of living up to their requirements and conditions that would put on them for these five individuals. do you think that the release of these five individuals to the taliban, even under the conditions that are being discussed is a wise move when the rate ofer recidivism? these are five leaders to have previously been declared to be too dangerous to be released. i would like your comments. >> >> the department of defense supports the process of

reconciliation and efforts to support afghan lead reconciliation. it their understanding the nation of the individuals that are involved. we're working to see how we can assess the afghans. no decisions have been made of the detainees. the law requires these detainee of the offense it is before any transfer can occur. we are in absolute agreement that these must be in place before anything can go forward. no decision to do so has been taken. >> do you have any comment on that issue? >> i think as long as the secretary can certify that they

will not become recidivists, there is the break on the process. >> you have noted that one of the greatest shortages esau and our fight where assets popery and festering and increased surveillance and reconnaissance forum. do you believe that a sense we last had a conversation about this that you're getting the kind of support from the intelligence committee in terms of price toric -- prioritizing the asset? >> i think we are in better shape than we were before. we're grateful for that support. the resources have been made available through the air force. they have helped improve that

situation to include the arrival of hyper spectral capabilities. it has been very helpful. >> thank you for the commitment of your family. >> i am privileged to be here. he had to go here. at is a privilege that i share his concern about these detainees. i appreciate the reassurance that you have given on the secretary's behalf. i know the taliban has said this is the way to build trust. it is much too much too soon to give up five of these detainees. there other things we have to do to build up the trust. frankly, i do not know how

secretary panetta could ever certified that these five would not be recidivists. i hope he never does. senator nelson? >> thank you. thank you for your testimony today and for being here. please take our appreciation back to the men and women in uniform and the civilians there looking to help solve a very challenging problem that we all face. one of the things that we have struggled with as a country and as individuals and does the military is trying to outline progress and put it into a process parent it is too easy to talk about winning or losing.

one person success is another person's loss. we established the benchmark in afghanistan. both of your analysis -- analyses our efforts in achieving those benchmarks. last october the security and stability revealed that the afghan army units will need 36% independently or for purely support. only 44% of the police assessed for some early affected. could you give us your benchmark thought about how that direction is going? , going from 36% -- are we going

from 36% to 40%? >> let me offer you a couple of comments. the light to give you a level of specificity that it deserves. and jerry of 2011, at their 155 battalion sized units -- in 2011, there were 155 battalion sized units. none of them were rated as independent at that time. a year later there are 168 units. we have gone from 101 to 127 in the top three. it was independent with advisers. in just a year there has been significant improvements. it is not a linear improvements.

it is an improvement that gains capability over time in a nonlinear way. there have been similar improvements with the police as well. let me take that question and make sure i get back to that with a level of specificity. >> there has been progress. they have worked out with the secretary of state while the secretary of defense. >> i am satisfied that we are making progress. i know that they're always be times when we slip back. it looks like there has been some of again progress. we will provide detailed numbers as you requested. >> let me deal with the issue of

the numbers of personnel that are now in the afghan national security force. we cannot always evaluate everything simply on the basis of the cost. we always have to know what the cost is. can you tell me how much a cost taxpayers to support the current afghan national security force ta? >> let me pull up a number. my recollection is that the request was a little over 11 billion. if you look at that cost compared to the overall cost of the conflict, it is relatively small. >> i know you do not evaluate the needs based on what the cost is. we cannot ignore costs.

i appreciate the fact that you're not saying we have to have the best afghan national forces money can buy. it is a factor for the american people to be aware of. we're trying to control a deficit. we're taking care of our national security needs as well. you agree with that? >> i do. >> ellis appreciate short, crisp answer is one possible. -- i always appreciate short, crisp answers when possible. and in surgeons may be looking toward alternatives to violence. at the same time the taliban

seems to be threatening more violence and more sensational violence. is there, apart from the sensationalism of the threats is there ahe chirokoran, bonafide effort to find alternatives to violence? >> that is a really important question. if it's at the ability to decompose the insurgency. it is pursuing reintegration. and the specter of a peacemaking that would occur -- any spectrum of peacemaking that would occur, you have a political agreement that would be called a reconciliation. on the other end you have the individual opportunity for the insurgent himself to come off the battlefield for what ever reason. that is a continuum.

where we have seen some pretty substantial success in the last year is in the area of reintegration. my own experience from iraq was when we began to see the individuals reintegrate. they had either a grievance that had been resolved or they elected to give up violence. that began a process of decomposition. the leadership passed to listen. what happens in the last year is that the karzai administration, that he is the current ceo of that organization after the assassination of president rabbani.

we have created the afghan process which has a provincial peace committee and he said the provinces and a joint secretariat to support it. and one in january of 2011, that there were 600 insurgents who had reintegrated. today there are 3800. there is another several hundred that are in the process. there are a number of others that have gone home. we know there are more. that is something the insurgency has to account for. very few have gone back into the fight. that is a very important advance. this addresses the issue. >> i appreciate that response. i would hope the reconciliation effort might be successful with

the leaders as well. i suspect that is a much more difficult challenge. >> it does take longer. thank you. >> thank you. >> i think it has seen a great deal of wisdom over the years dealing with the issues we face. i think he has indicated his strength has this. they have the support. i>> he said afghanistan will met

the challenge. that expresses a confidence that we can be successful. you quoted president obama pose a statement we will build an enduring relationship. sister mccain talked about the vision we had for the successful in afghanistan. to we have had bipartisan support for that. we are having some difficulties now, that at least in the press. we have a problem with the koran and afghan soldiers killing our own soldiers. president karzai has been making a serious a very odd statements as far as i am concerned that

reflects frustration and also what causes me concern about where he is. i guess you are the person on the ground. i asked this question of general petraeus when needed the surge. in your best judgment, working for the american people, you are required to give this congress your best opinion of the military leader. is it an efforts that if we move smartly ahead following the vision we have that seems to be a bipartisan vision, can we be successful tax if the circumstance reaches a point where we can not be successful, will you tell us? >> i believe we can be successful. i will tell you the moment we cannot be. >> how would you describe the

series of negative public events? how does that impact your efforts? it cannot be good. we are members of a great congress and nation. we are engaged in policies that have up and down in them. is this one of these situations in which you believe the adverse events can be worked through and that this is not a fatal event? >> i believe we can work through them all. >> how do you see president karzai and his comments? i was there with senator mccain. i was taken aback by some of the comments that were made. senator mccain made clear his

concern. it was an open exchange that i thought was valuable. i know president karzai has made some additional comments of the same nature since then. that is a cause of concern to me. what can you tell us about where we stand with regard to the president? >> you have pick your finger on the issue that there is frustration with these events. these events have struck a blow at the core of the relationship. this president has to be able to speak to the afghan people about putting our relationship and the context of the long-term relationship of afghanistan. i understand the frustration.

i understand if it was one event we would have a particular view. we have had several events. did the urination video. these shootings in aggregate. these are significant events. i believe he is committed to the relationship with the united states. he was very clear in a video teleconference in which i was in attendance with ambassador crocker. his very clear in his commitment to a strategic partnership with the united states. these incidents cannot be ignored. he has to explain those incidents. >> some of the term see has used i reject. it i rejected the use of the word "demon.

n" when it is applied to the troops. i reject the equivalents of our forces with the taliban in the same sentence. i understand why these words can come out. on behalf of our forces, and the population of the 50 states, i reject that term. this magnificent churches are sacrificing every day. i was given a report of one of our troops that when he saw a small child underneath one of our things, it there himself under the vehicle to pull that child out so it will not be harmed in the process and in the process perished himself. that the sacrifice.

that is a vacation to a cause. i believe that president karzai understands that. it is difficult to get past these recent incidents. in the process, words might be spoken that we all regret. these terms and not apply to us. i can understand how in moments of stress and anger they might be in there. >> i have to say the people who have observed your leadership are universally extremely complementary of what you're doing in the leadership you are

providing. your integrity is unquestioned. i take comfort in your honest analysis. if you wanted to comment on that, my time is up but perhaps should also like to comment. >> it has been an incredible bouncy time of a few weeks to about a month. during that incredibly difficult time, we have also seen in addition to the conversations between president obama and president karzai, and we've also seen general allan conclude the memorandum of understanding what are the most sensitive issues that we have to deal with.

we need to understand that track tragic events will happen and that we will have challenges. you have the wherewithal to continue. >> thank you. when we left we were worried. we did not know what would happen. i think we would have problems?

>> let people appreciate your leadership. it is a test situation. why not ask you to begin with? how many al qaeda would you estimate? >> about the same. >> there is a sanctuary. we have been pretty successful. i like to make another point.

this is how long the task has been taking. there's obviously a difference between toppling a government in developing long-term security practices in countries that have gone through what afghanistan has gone through. it is rather frustrating for a lot of people when we are defining success at this point as having in afghanistan military and police force that would be capable of taking charge of its own security operations. this is not really the end of the war.

we're looking at a point or the afghanis will be able to fight their own war are take care of their own security measures. this is a culture that does know how to fight. we are being presumptuous here. the talk about how we're trying to train the afghan military and police forces. they have been fighting for hundreds of years. we should remind ourselves that it to his actions the afghanis throughout the taliban with the assistance of some highly qualified but small number of americans. we did not do it. they did it. i was very take them by one of the comments he made in your testimony when you were saying that they are actually better than we had expected them to be. there are forces that are operating right now. they are better than they

thought they would be. let me ask you, if they are better than we thought they would be, would one of your considerations when you are making recommendations be accelerating the pace of our military withdrawal? you can actually see that as a symbol of success of our strength rather than a weakness. >> as i said to the chairman, i am going to think in the recommendations i make a very important consideration will be the state. they are better than we thought they would be. i believe you have seen forces that is required the opportunity to get into the fight to come into their own. that is what is happening now. we will watch this closely and

do all we can to accelerate that process. in parts of the outcome is that there is a reduced requirement for u.s. or isaf power, i will make up part of my recommendation. >> you are in a precarious situation in that your confirmation hearing is a week from now. it could official at occupied the position that you are now acting in. i want to ask you a question about the strategic partnership. from my perspective and from others, the nature of the strategic framework agreement that took place with respect to iraq should have been subject to much more vigorous participation by the united states congress. we are defining a security relationship with another country in which there has been

this type of military involvement, it seems to me that there should be some sort of progression all approval of the parameters that eventually are agreed upon. do you see this strategic partnership as it is moving forward as an expression of executive power? do you see this as something that is more in the lines of traditional roles of congress? >> let me first say very explicitly what i welcome the opportunity to testify for confirmation, any contribution i can make can explain what we're doing in afghanistan. i look forward to being back on the 20 night. with respect to the strategic partnership, this'll be a critical milestone.

it cannot be the last milestone. i suspect there is an agreement that will address in number of issues, including bases and so forth. my guess it would be a more to the types of issues that you are concerned about and you are raising. at this time, we will commit to consult with congress as a move forwards. >> we would be prepared to explain how to relate to this. you had a key about what will congress have. >> let me express my concern. if you will recall what happened in the situation with the relationship with iraq, there to agreements. it really defined the nature of a longer-term relationship. the other was so but -- sopa

which had more net and bolts. neither of them were the formeal consideration of congress. we had to go to a room in order to read it. it is pretty much kept out some of the public eye. i believe when you are defining this type of far reaching relationship between two countries that it should not be a matter of the executive branch. this conversation will be continued. >> thank you.

>> and january 31, lance corporal eddie daucus was shot in the head by an afghan army liaison imbedded with his unit in the helmand province. yesterday we received a briefing on the details with the marine corps and enabled the service. the ongoing marine corps investigation has revealed that the afghan soldier responsible for the shooting has a questionable personal history, previously unknown to the u.s. military. i was informed that this soldier would never have been allowed to in bed with the forces had we known the history. i believe that robust recruit screening could have helped avoid the tragic death of this

brave young man. will your team work with the marine corps to provide a detailed report on the circumstances surrounding his murder? >> we will. >> what is your current assessments of the insider threat facing chips in afghanistan. this happened so frequently that it is known by the term force attacks. >> i have to be the final number. we have 50 to americans that

have been killed and another 68 so that happen when did. we have taken significant steps to work closely with the afghans. of the afghan side we're trying to do the counter intelligence committee. it is down to the italian level. they have improved the vetting process of individuals are coming into the afghan national army within eight step vetting process.

there is an unprecendented level between the ana and anp to in bed intelligence agencies from the nds in basic training schools. >> how long has this new process been in place? >> months. >> this strikes me that that is a very high number of green on blue attacks. >> we have had six americans

that have been killed this yaer. -- yaer. -- year. >> there are measures that they have undertaken. those i believe will begin the process. it is the insider threat that has been said. those measures have only gone into of fat in this calendar year. we're going to work very hard -- go into effect this calendar year. we're going to work very hard to reduce is as much as possible. it is important note that the afghans have suffered dearly as many casualties as we have from the same kind of threat. it is in everyone's interest that we have a combined efforts

to be able to sense and eliminate this. >> let me make it clear. you're speaking of green on green. afghan soldiers killing and other afghan soldier? >> that is correct. >> it is in our interest to be able to sense the presence of extremists in the ranks of be able to deal with them when we do. we would be very happy to provide this to you. we can provide you with accounts of successful investigations that have been occurred in the last several months where we have intercepted, are arrested, detained individuals whose intent it was to harm afghans or i staff-- isaf forces. >> i am asking for a detailed answer on the record. as far as the incidents since

2007, as far as when they occurred, i would like to see if it is getting better or worse. i understand understand that the killer is being held in custody by afghan security forces. what steps will you take to ensure the afghans did not intentionally or unintentionally read least this individual? a wiki me and stated in writing on the latest developments on the afghan -- will you keep me updated in writing on the latest developments on the afghan forces? >> we will. i've been a personal contacts which you of the army staff for whom i have great respect. we have spoken on this individual personally. he has assured me that justice will be done. they have him on the afghan

army. they will prosecute him according to afghan law. >> i have a follow-up question. this deals with more ridiculous on the issue. >> senator udall? >> good morning. thank you for your service and dedication on this crucial mission. we read in afghanistan last fall, we talked at length about plans above this year's campaign and about the plan for the afghan national security forces. i want to make sure you have the

resources to recruit, train and equip a viable security. i have to tell yeayou in that. , i know we have been justifiably focused on the counterinsurgency mission and routing out corruption.

>> let me start with that. the ansf that will ultimately be -- it to continue in th force past 2014. it will be based on quality metrics come at the assessments of the enemy situation comedy operation environment and so on.

we would expect the forced to continue at least a full year after the 2014 force. the nature that we envisage now would be primarily capable of counterinsurgency capabilities, ought to continue to deal with what we are calling operationally significant insurgent capabilities. wherever we may find there still an insurgent threat, the capacity of that force will be focused on continuing to deal with it. as comments have been made this morning imply, one of the challenges we continue to face is the insurgent. across the border in the safe havens. the nature of the force as it is currently in visit to be disposed around the country, based on the operational environment, may require more of the force ultimately be disposed

to be deployed in the eastern and southern portions of the country that had been originally imagined, but i think that is fine. as we are talking through this now, with afghan leadership, it will ultimately be their decision, but we are having conversations through the end of 2014 on the bilateral campaign plan, and we are having discussions about january 2015 until the end of 2017. the expectation would be that we would dispose the forces in afghanistan in direct proportion and direct response to the operational environment and the insurgent threat. the expected force will ultimately be a force that has sufficient policing capacity to provide protection to the population, and an army and air force that has the capacity to move quickly, to the point of requirement, twitter back up the police as necessary or conduct additional counterinsurgency

operations. we're looking for those ballots capabilities, sir. >> dr. miller? >> general allan has pretty well covered it. we understand what the composition it is to be, 352,000, with 195,000 a.n.a., and the afghan police. the composition and overall, when those are reduced under the conditions, is not yet determined. as we think about the post-2014 planning, we are thinking about a range of different contingencies, a range of different situations. we understand that while one has a plan, at the end of the day, that will have to be adjusted overtime. >> sir, we will still see the forest disposed almost certainly along the original

plan, but elements of that force, again, based on the enemy situation, would be deployed in an expeditionary manner for times and the forces that would otherwise be deployed to the north will still be garrisoned in the north, but elements of it, to be determined with detailed planning, were deployed to this areas where there specific skills or combat power are needed. we envision those as temper redeployments. we still see the army based as across thevisioned tha country, but the force would amass as necessary to deal with operationally rather than in search of hot spots. >> so if we do not have a broad reconciliation process, peace talks, the taliban it included in the afghan national government, these forces would be prepared to take the fight and the counter insurgency, struck to the taliban, to their network and others, it would

have as a goal to undercut the stability and security of afghanistan? >> that is correct, and they are demonstrating those capabilities already. and who was responsible for determining what those capabilities for the afghan security forces should be and measuring their progress toward meeting those requirements? is that you, general? is that the minister of the interior? >> clearly, they are measuring them as well, and we compare them. within the i said forces, it is done by the native training mission, but also done by the operational commanders budget within the icef, it is done by the nato training mission, but also by the upper crystal commanders. >> it seems to offer an opportunity as well. >> it is, i think, a substantial contribution to the security of afghanistan.

the a.l.p. does a number of things for the campaign. the first is that it provides the opportunity for afghans to defend themselves. they are not militias, they are not individuals who are hired apart from the local population, inserted into the population. our special operators will go to a village or town, spend time living with the population, and they will ultimately in conversation with the leadership of the population determined that they seek to be basically mobilized as a community to defend themselves. when they make that decision, and it is their decision, then we began to recruit the afghan local police. the individuals of any particular garrison are checked by the local elders, for their police record. they are technically and officially associated with the minister of the interior,

through the local district chief of police, change -- trained by our special green berets and seals, who live amongst them and mentor their capabilities. what has happened with the a.l.p. is it has created opportunities for large parts of the population to reject the taliban. there have been taliban commanders to say it could kill an a.l.p. leader, and after a local policeman who was leading at the touch, if he could kill the commander, it is worth 10 coalition soldiers. the taliban are very threatened by the a.l.p., because the key terrain, it is the human terrain. the local police deny the human terrain to the taliban. we're only halfway through the field of the force. we are about 12,000 right now. we envision about 30,000.

once we reach that, we will made to make hard decisions about retaining that force, continuing its existence, or expand it. we would do that with the afghans and the lead on that decision making. >> my time has expired, but two final comments. this is very significant, working within the tribal structure in afghanistan. it is not comparative and the sense of the sunni awakening and iraq, but there are elements of this that engage the local population and fit the tribal world view. count me as somebody who wants to support this. >> thank you, sir. >> i also want to underline the need for a post 20-13 contingency planning, so we're not and a continued war. we will have a presence in afghanistan, there is much at stake. we do not want to be attacked again, but we could learn a lot from what has occurred over the

last 10 years in afghanistan and iraq so we set this as we hand this off to the afghans. thank you for your service, both of you. >> thank you. >> general allen, thank you, dr. miller, thank you. i was honored to serve in afghanistan, and meet with you and discuss the challenges, and i appreciate all of your service and sacrifice and those of our men and women serving. it was my greatest honor i have had to do that, especially meeting with you and all of the commanders under your command. a couple of thing i know it from that trip, we were contracting with the enemy. by that trip, with the blessing of the chairman and others, we were able to address that in our recent defense authorization bill. is that helping? >> absolute the, the ability to

terminate a contract on the spot for misconduct is very helpful. -- absolutely. >> and we also address some of the issues with the guardsmen, and getting the amendment ought to do that. just those two issues alone made the trip worthwhile. the other thing that i noted during that time was the amazing amount of august -- audits that you and your commander are subjected to. is that better than that was? >> i have to start by saying we have benefited from these. >> i understand that. >> we have got import help from the department of defense and all the agencies consolidating like or identical requirements so that we can get one audit to provide universal return, and that has been helpful. >> that is something i brought

up to the chairman, with his leadership, and ranking members to put that message out as well. u.n. not avoiding the audits, but take all of the men and women who are serving, putting them in office, it is, of reductive, especially with the drawdown. is that now working better? >> we think it is, sir, thank you. >> when we had to get the sign- off for the night raids, i am deeply concerned about the rule of law issues. the wii signing off on these? judges, afghan judges? -- who is signing off on these? judges, afghan judges? go through the process. >> senator, we are really just starting these negotiations, and they are very sensitive. i would be happy to give it to you as a classified ad and them. >> absolutely, and i am concerned about the rule of law issues, as we have observed at

the facility, participating in a review of these, deeply concerned about that. i know we will take that into consideration. how were those soldiers who have killed our soldiers, how are they treated? are they arrested, in jail? where are they? what is the status of those folks? >> many of them were killed on the spot. the others who were apprehended are in the hands of the afghan military. the one who killed the lance corporal is in the military detention facility. as i was by the general assured, justice will be done in that regard. i am confident that he will be true to his word, sir. >> no doubt about that. i noted with senator udall, i was able to observe the

leadership of the local afghan police program and i am a huge supporter and i am deeply concerned about getting that program up to 30,000, doing the dramatic drop down. how does that work out? getting that program but running is the clearest detroit -- is the clearest deterrent for the taliban and potentially export terrorism around the region and eventually potentially moving on to other parts, other countries within that region. how do you think that will shake out? >> i think it will continue to be an important mechanism for holding the ground in afghanistan. >> quite a bit less cost and manpower. >> much less cost. the special operators we have dedicated to that, we are in the process of working very closely with the special operations

command, led by our great green beret general, who i think you have met. >> yes. >> i hold him in very high esteem. we are transitioning other aspects, transitioning to special operators in those units as well to afghan special operators. that is a natural course of events that occurs. that frees up the green berets, seals, and marines to go elsewhere. if you watched the unfolding of the campaign plan, what happens and head of the movement of our conventional forces is you will see the sights and peering ahead of us, holding the terrain, denying it to the enemy. when our conventional forces maneuver on the ground, the population is much more receptive to our presence and accomplish our objectives far more quickly. >> just the simple thing as putting in a road to connect

these villages that have not been connected for centuries, or ever, and now when the taliban has tried to move on a village, we have other villagers moving and to help, which has never been heard of. and you have the afghan local police and the d.c. they are communicating -- i forget if it was by a belt or light, on the situation, letting them know there is trouble. are you finding that kind of fascinating that is happening that never happened i think in the history of afghan politics and troubled negotiations and involvement with each other? >> we are seeing cooperation i think is really helpful. we are also seeing the resilience of love a.l.p. we had not anticipated. they are taking casualties and staying on the checkpoints. they're taking casualties and still going out on patrol. >> i remember them fighting many battles, and finally the taliban moved on.

>> exactly. >> i encourage you, sir, to keep us in the loop on that. if you hear it is being jeopardized or short changed, you need to let the chairman and ranking members know, and all of us who are each supporters of that program, to make sure that we give you the tools and resources to complete that mission, and thank you very much, sir. >> thank you, senator brown. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you both for being here and being patient. many members of easily have a lot of questions. general, i don't do that very often, but they did an incredible job in afghanistan. we had a lot of modifications in our schedule, i will say that, and adjustments were made rapidly, which gave me more security of what was going on there as far as the troops doing a great job. the colonel did not ask me to do this. but he did a great job, and you

made our trip a lot easier. >> senator, thank you, and i will extend him 18 months. >> i like it, thank you. let me also say it -- i know that you know this, and that is one-tenth of the force over there right now comes from alaska, about 9000 troops. i had a great opportunity to see the 125. i did not have a chance to see the 425, but it was an incredible team, and the testimony you have given is similar to what i heard and saw as far as the changes that had to occur have been occurring since i was there in may of 2009, but my first trip, a lot of changes with the security forces, which is encouraging. if i remember some of the conversations we had on the ground, as they become more adaptive to their ability and capacity, they are able to

maintain and hold these areas and take the lead, which i think is an impressive piece of the equation. in 2009, i was not very secure in that view. today, i see that. i want to say thanks to the team. not just the u.s. troops, a large chunk is, but we have great allies training our folks. next week, i will be over in croatia. i know croatia has been an incredible partner, as many others have, and i will echo that to them and thank them for their help. that, to me, is important. let me ask you -- i also saw some incredible technology, and i say that any way as far is not advanced technology in terms of managing that we are and dealing with, but some of those chemicals and materials

coming from pakistan, we know that, you know that, we all know that. tell me kind of what you think we need to be doing or where we are in this regard. i know you talked about pakistan earlier, both of you did, and this, to me, is one of my biggest concerns. i will be frank, about the lack of focus, in my view, by pakistan and helping us out and assisting in this effort, and when we know and we can pinpoint where it is coming from, but we're not getting the full cooperation. help me understand -- this is one big question i get from alaskans and the frustration that have, as we see 9000 of our troops there, and they're very first. with this, the lack of participation. i know some will correct me, i am sure i will get a call from the state department, but i did not see as much as they could be doing. who wants to take that?

>> senator, let me first say i had the opportunity in country to meet with the arctic wolves, or doing a terrific job. -- who are doing a terrific job, both operating by themselves and part ring with our coalition and afghan forces. i think it to elements to the challenge you described. one, as you indicated, we have gotten better at the counter-ied fight, substantially better over time. unfortunately, because it does not just persisted but the enemy has continued to adapt, our joint organization has done good work, and obviously our team in the country has continued to focus on that challenge. i can say at multiple levels, multiple times we have raised the challenge of this type of a

sanctuary for the development and movement of ied's from pakistan into afghanistan. pakistan has a very significant interest in the stability of afghanistan, but they also have a significant interest -- and this is a problem because as i know it -- they are suffering significant casualties within pakistan. we will continue to work with them and do everything possible to address this and to reduce the threat that these explosives pose to u.s., coalition, and afghan forces. >> i appreciate your comment, and i recognize the delicacy dealing with this, but i also look at the other perspective. for example, all the capacity for afghanistan, around some of the stuff we are doing but, the economic capacity to survive, here we know afghanistan used to

be an incredible producer, incredible producer of mr. balz and so forth. india is a market that is just ready to take it. pakistan is a problem here. to move those products at an aggressive rate, because of their issues with india. i know it is a complicated process, but if we ever want to make that region more secure, we need to figure this out. pakistan seems to bea a critical piece from the national security perspective, but also from the economic opportunities being denied to them. do either of you want to comment on that? >> senator, i agree with what you said and the importance of developing both internal and external markets for afghanistan as they begin to grow more capacity. if i could, i like to thank you

and the committee for the support of the defense department competition and the task force on stability operations. part of what it does is looking for long-term, significant movement on the afghan economy -- a mineral extraction, for example, but a key part is to look at this from the bottom up, the grass roots industries and to help areas where we have cleared and held and we are building in helping them build capacity. i was in afghanistan just a couple weeks ago. i was in india less than a month ago and i had an opportunity to speak also with a number of their senior officials. they have a longstanding interest in afghanistan, and they are also interested and are committed to that economic relationship. let me conclude by saying that regional context is incredibly

important. over time, economic element will be vital. sir, i understand we have work to do and we're committed to working on it. >> general, i know that you spoke earlier about where we are, the status of the withdrawal and what would happen over time and so forth. you had some areas of concern as to monitor this and watch this. i know that senator nelson and i were a supporter of this, we have a benchmark list of the last authorization bill. honestly, i would love if you would share not only with me, but i am sure other members would want to see, where we are on those benchmarks. my time is now out, but how those benchmarks could influence the timetable currently in place, but also can

positive movement on those benchmarks have any movement and accelerating any drawdown that could occur? could you, or whoever would be the appropriate person, look at those benchmarks and see how they compare with where we are at in the 2014 target for combat troops? then, is there benchmarks that could accelerate that may give you an opportunity to accelerate the combat troop withdrawal? could you do that for the record and present that was at some point? >> we have your question, sir, and we would be glad to do that. >> thank you. i cannot say enough about the work of the troops on the ground. they are incredible, motivated, excited. everyone from the wounded warriors team to the folks at the dock work to sitting in the tower moving airplanes to the troops on the ground, it was impressive. i was very proud to say that one-tenth of the force of their

comes from alaska. thank you all for the work that you are doing every day. >> thank you for your support as well, sir. >> think you, senator. >> thank you, at " dr. miller and general allen. general, i want to thank you for your powerful testimony, repudiating some of the parent and outrageous rhetoric -- repudiating some of the rhetoric that comes from president karzai. we share your sentiments about their integrity, bravery, and sacrifice, so thank you for your testimony in that regard. but me share my opinion that is the same as senator lieberman about the transfer of these five high-value detainees. these are the worst of the worst. these five have the blood of americans and allies on their hands. i want to commend secretary. we're taking his certification responsibility so seriously,

because i did not see how you could certify that these five guys would not return to the battlefield given our history of recidivism from guantanamo. i wanted to express that and commend the secretary for what i understand his position right now on those five detainees. general allen, we had recently before the committee senator mccain spoke with the general about the report that al qaeda is making a comeback in iraq. general mathers said that the al qaeda comeback is particularly the or the in western iraq and even said that i cut it is threatening to extended to baghdad -- and even said that al qaeda is threatening to extend into baghdad. general, you understand not only with your current responsibilities in afghanistan but the importance of what we have done in iraq and obviously the role that iran can play in

iraq -- not only iraq but currently afghanistan. what was the perception of us not leaving a follow-on force in iraq and afghanistan, given your need to make sure that we execute a strategic partnership? and second, what lessons can we take from that as we go forward and making sure that we have a follow-on agreement in afghanistan? >> back in november of last year, president karzai i think wisely convened something that in this case was over 2000 afghan notables from all walks of life who came together for several days to answer, in essence, two questions -- should

there be a strategic partnership with the u.s., and should afghanistan pursue peace with the taliban? the first of the two being the preeminent out come out -- the outcome of this. the afghan constitution says the voice of the people is the highest expression of the afghan people. there was no question as the committee's report that one after another, that it was the desire of that representative body of the afghan people at the desired a long-term relationship with the united states. the individual, pores of which remain to be negotiated, -- the individual pieces which remain to be negotiated, the desired a long-term relationship with the u.s. i did not believe there was a similar expression about the long-term u.s. presence by the iraqis.

thankfully, because of this, and the articles that ultimately accompanied its expression, we have a feel for what their relationship should be. i think the voice of the people was quite a blow to the taliban. when it supported a strategic partnership which will ultimately come into effect within probably weeks, another blow to the taliban, that will set up the conference, the summit of the heads of state of the 50 nations in may. when they register their unequivocal support for afghanistan, not just in 2014 but the years that follow, that will be another blow to the taliban and a signal that the international community desires peace and security in afghanistan, which is not just good for the afghan people in support of the afghan government, but good for the region as well, for pakistan and

even iraq. i think the ground is just different in afghanistan now. these tragedies recently notwithstanding, which have indeed complicated the issue, i believe president karzai and his government still remain committed to a strategic partnerships and we will pursue that. i hope i got your question. i apologize. >> >> you testified that iran is playing a role in the counterinsurgency. how important is entering this strategic partnership in terms of not only the interest in not having afghanistan become a safe haven for al qaeda again, but also as a blow to iran and their influence in the region? >> great question.

just as nature abhors a vacuum, so do geopolitics. should isaf, should nato leave afghanistan, that would create in my mind for all intents and purposes, a geopolitical vacuum. the head of the nsa being ready to take full security. it puts the region on notice that the presence of the u.s. and the international community in afghanistan is a presence that is reassuring to the afghan people, a presence that is reassuring to the afghan government. it buys the time necessary for the afghan government to go through the reform process, to get at this culture of corruption with impunity. a stable afghanistan is in the interest of the region.

and while the iranians may not be happy about an american presence there or a western presence, nonetheless, the afghan people desire it, and that presence ultimately works to iran's benefit as well because it will affect the cross border flow of narcotics and weapons and human trafficking. there are over 1.5 million afghan refugees in iran. they might be able to go home in a stable afghanistan. it is in their interest as well. >> just to be clear, as you know, general, doctor, we have great concerns about the iranian regime and is in our interest to toward their interest in that area. we do not want him to fill the power vacuum, true? >> that is correct. >> and that is true of the united states and our allies. >> absolutely. thank you both for your service

to our country. >> first, to reiterate the importance of our strategic partnership and enduring commitment, and how that is not only essential for security, but it affects perceptions of the taliban, including in iran. and it includes both sides of the fence. they have provided some support to the afghan government. and they answered -- have provided support to the taliban. if they see it in their interest to stir the pot, and so forth, i think the strategic partnership, the advancement of the ansf and the clear expression of commitment by the united states and the coalition is going to cause them to recalculate, and that is essential. >> wiederwald -- we all want iran to have to recalculate. thank you thank you. senator manchin.

>> thank you. thank you for your service and your support that i know you get from your wife and your daughter. it is a family affair. i have serious reservations about the sustainability of the afghan security forces. the afghan people have had their military rebuild by multiple foreign powers. according to the recent reports sponsored by the army, the soviet gold was 315,000 to build their afghan troops. they never got there because the afghan military was plagued with corruption, in literacy, and desertion. those are the same problems that we are facing now, i understand. powerball has been to build the afghan security forces to 352,000. by october of this year, you have general burgess recently testified that they still rely on us for logistics, and transport. my question would be, is the afghan army -- in the 1980's, it

did not last. what is your assessment of what we are trying to build now and will they be able to secure their country without our help once we leave? >> i was searching for the precise figures. i'm sure that general allen has them in his head. i will say that to date, our experience is that for the afghan national army, their monthly attrition rates are below -- are coming down. they are not quite to the targets that we would like, but they're coming down and are very close. and for the afghan national police, they have a time of at least several months where they have been below that attrition rate. that is one indicator of their sustainability. there is no question that sustaining -- growing this force, and in sustaining it as a quality force is going to

continue to be a challenge. but as general allen said, it is not just the path to transition. is a competent and capable nasf that is the path to success. as we continue to provide resources and continue to mentor them and treason -- transition to a strategic overwatch, this has got to be the central mission. and it is one that i know that this committee and the congress has watched closely. metrics don't tell everything, but we are committed to provide the best information that we can on those metrics. but we have seen very substantial growth in quantity. general allan is it better able to speak to it, but by the

indicators that i have seen we also have seen improvements in quality. and as the growth of 23 under 52,000 level sometime up before october this year, but focus on quality and on training will need to be sustained, not just for the rest of this year, but for many years to come. >> that is what i was afraid of. that is what i have been hearing. that is the problem 1/2. -- the problem i have. i have a discussion -- a respectful disagreement about our mission there with that being said, i respect the job that you all do in such adverse conditions. but i have some concerns. in general i have always said we should be here rebuilding america. we have so many needs and our country rather than being in afghanistan. and i have been there twice, once as a governor. and i thank our guards people for the job that they do. to go back as a senator, i did not seek an improvement from

2006 through 2011. i came to those conclusions because of what i experience. i do not see things getting better despite what i just put forward. there are codes allow husbands to be wise, encourage the segregation of sexist, reduces women's rights in divorce cases. there have been more troops killed by afghan allies than by al qaeda or the taliban last month. the wartime estimates are that waste and fraud has been about $4.4 billion for the past 10 years. that would go a long way in west virginia. we have given $85 billion to rebuild afghanistan. we could have killed nearly six new elementary schools in this

country. why do we continue to give this country more money for nation- building? i know there are some that do not want me to refer to this as nation-building, but i do not see what effect they large infrastructure projects are having on the insurgency. i was there when the general was preparing to rotate out and i have asked the same question there. i guess i would put that same question forward. >> i think a large infrastructure programs do carry a risk, as you point out, that i think we are only now beginning to understand. the infrastructure programs that have been supported by the afghan infrastructure fund, for

example, which ultimately will connect to the northeast power system and the south east power system, will work to raise laporta -- the level of the dam, work to repair the hydro motors and install the third turbine. while they are heavy infrastructure programs, it has the capacity of delivering capacity to the population from kabul along route 1 to kandahar and the pashtun population in the south that would otherwise not have been available. it has been an important contribution to our ability to eject the public on from the population in the south. the bridging strategy that has been under way for electricity in kandahar for some time has provided us with the ability to

electrified businesses and provide electricity to the population that the taliban could not have hoped, could not have even imagine to providing to that of people -- the population. it has given them the ability to support the government and opportunity thatar would not have otherwise been possible. go ahead, please. >> my time is running out. the other thing that took me over the top was that the only country that was successful, or was trying to be successful at extracting any of the minerals that they had, such as copper, is china. if china does not have a book on the ground and has not invested the dollar. i know they are expecting us to give them the protection that they are meeting and the infrastructure to extract that mineral, that their country will profit by. that is just beyond my caucu comprehension that and we would be doing that there when we should be taking care of america. >> if i could just answer that last piece, it is very much in

our interest, it vital interest to ensure that al qaeda does not find sanctuary in afghanistan again. in order to do that, -- >> al qaeda has presence everywhere else. you said yourself that there is very little presence of al qaeda. but you're going to go every where in the world? we're going to police the whole world and set up shop? >> no, sir, but it is a sign that this campaign has been successful. afghanistan, as you well know, was the source of the attack on the united states on 9/11. it is different, and because of our history there and our commitment there is different. what i wanted to say was, with respect to the economic development of afghanistan, we are making in addition to the afghan infrastructure fund, relatively modest investments to the states that we have. what we should insist upon is that we have a level playing

field, not that it is tilted in our favor, but that the economic development of afghanistan, that we have the opportunity to compete and that our businesses have the opportunity to compete. while we not -- we may not win everyone, i believe they will win their share. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> dr. miller, you testified earlier this week that it would cost between $4 billion and $5 billion a year to sustain the afghan security force at approximately the strength of 352,000. the afghan government has total revenue of under $2 billion. even if the government were to

borrow every dime that it has to the afghan security forces, which would obviously not be feasible, it does not even cover half of the cost. since the afghan forces are the linchpin of the strategy, this is a key issue. since the afghan government cannot afford to sustain its own forces. i know the administration is trying to get commitments for long-term funding from other governments, but when i look at most of the other european countries they have budget problems that are worse than our own and they have not even that the nato established targets for defense spending, much less the contributions for the afghan security forces. that leads me to the question of

how long the you project that we americans will have to bear most of the cost of paying for the afghan security forces. are we talking about 10 years, 20 years? can we realistically expect that the afghan government will ever be able to sustain the cost of its own security forces? >> senator collins, the afghan government i believe, can, will, and should pay their share of the cost of the ansf. but you are correct, it will not be the majority of those costs for the near term.

your also correct that this administration is working hard to ask other countries, other isaf countries and a contributing countries to make a commitment to the long-term sustainment of the ansf. we are at the front end of the process in a sense, but we are looking to get all of the commitments to that and will be able to have a conversation about that at the chicago nato summit, and be able to follow that with more focus on the economic summit at the tokyo summit. before i would come to the congress and ask for resources from the american people and ask you for that, we will do everything possible to make sure that afghanistan contributes the amount that it can, that we have done everything possible to get

contributions from others, and then ask for the amount we believe is necessary to sustain the ansf at a level that will provide stability for the country and will provide reduced risk to the united states. >> when i look at the numbers and how pour afghanistan is, it just seems to me we are looking at a never-ending commitment. i am not saying that the afghans will not contribute. but when their entire budget is less than half the cost of sustaining the troops today, that is troubling. i want to turn to another broader issue. general allan, your opening statement was so eloquent and moving, and the stories you told of the incredible sacrifice

of our troops, is inspiring. it is inspiring to all of us who are aware of those sacrifices and how patriotic our troops are and how much we ask of them. it also gives me some hope when i hear you say "i am confident that we will prevail in this endeavor. i believe we will be successful." but then i sestep back and i recall i heard very similar assessments from our commanders for 10 years now, that we are making progress, that they are hopeful that we will be successful in the end, but that the games are -- the gains are fragile and reversible. and i also read press reports of a new assessment by our intelligence community, and i realize this is a classified

assessment and you cannot address it publicly in detail, but if the press reports are correct, they are very discouraging, they are very pessimistic about what the new national intelligence estimate says. a one report in the "los angeles times" quotes an official as saying that last year's surge may be unsustainable. it goes on to say that the intelligence estimate also cast doubt about the sustainability of the broader objectives of improving and governance and developing a competent ansf, reaching -- reducing corruption and developing and afghanistan. it goes on to report that the afghan government in kabul may not be able to survive as the u.s. steadily pulled out its troops and reduces military and

civilian assistance. again, i know you cannot discuss the classified assessment, even though so much of it appears to have made its way into the press, but tell me why those concerns are wrong in your judgment. why are you optimistic that ultimately we will be successful and prevail? which would seem to contradict these reports. i know our troops are terrific, and that they will do anything they are asked and more. i know your own leadership is brilliant. i just wonder if this is doable. >> man, if i did not think it was doable, i would tell you -- wasm, if i did not think it

doable, i would tell you, and i would tell you quickly. i would not want to stay another day in this fight if i did not think it was doable. we disagree, and i would be happy to provide you with a classified response why we did. it was not just the commander of isaf a -- who disagreed. it was the ambassador and the supreme allied commander of europe. the issue was more in the assessment about the future than it is about the present. and i evaluate our success in our future by the success i am seeing in the present. and i am confident that if we continue on this trajectory with the kinds of capabilities that we have, with the kinds of successes that the afghan national security forces are achieving, that we can prevail in this. i cannot unfortunately go into the details here, but i believe i can illustrate why we differed in that particular assessment.

and i would have to be quick to point out that i know a number of those analysts and every single day, i see the work that they do in producing the intelligence. i appreciate that. there were a number of areas that we see right now that gives hope to the long-term assessment, which begins in 2014. the starting point for that assessment is different than we see it now. i'm very happy to give you our review on that. >> thank you. i would very much welcome that classified rebuttal. that would be very helpful. and again, thank you for your leadership and your personal sacrifices. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator collins, i request

for a classified rebuttals, correct? >> yes. >> is that something you will give us for the record? >> yes, sir, we will. >> thank you. senator limon paul is next. menthal is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your eloquence and the power of your responses today. my wish is that more americans could hear them firsthand. they contain some very powerful information that you shared with us during my last visit, information about the success of our special operations, our night rates, particularly the low rate of civilian casualties, a high rate of successfully seeking targets and degrading the leadership of the

insurgents -- taliban, al qaeda. you have noted in the materialse of interdiction and success, at least on our part, is declining. at these, over the last month. but i think it is fair to say the insurgents rely more on the i-80's as they are less successful in engaging -- ied's as they are less successful and engaging us directly, correct? >> that is correct. and it has been said that -- and i'm quoting from him and from pakistan. he has seen no significant difference in pakistan.

would you disagree with him, that you have seen a significant effort? >> f.a. classified level, i can tell you that pakistan -- at a classified level, i can tell you that pakistan has taken important steps in a couple of areas. on the whole, the reduction of the flow of calcium ammonium nitrate, which is the principle precursor, if you will, for the homemade explosive that influenced so many casualties, we have not seen the level of cooperation or action that we have requested or desired. no. i think you have answered my question very well and any other information that you can provide i would welcome as well. i gather that we are also making progress -- i heard from general

odierno and the officials that providing more of the equipment that protect our troops may have been new iterations of that gear. >> there has been terrific work that has been done. your leadership and the leadership of the committee has done an awful lot. the undergarment, which is saving lives and troops futures, as well as improvements in the art applications, the end the improvements and intelligence to attacking the network, all of these have reduced the vulnerabilities of our troops, the casualties are still too

high. >> and having seen, as you have done far more than i, the results of these absolutely insidious bombs, absolutely unacceptable. i thank you for the tremendous leadership that you and others in our marine corps and army and other branches have done in combating it. i want to turn for a moment to some problem areas that you and others have identified in this effort going beyond the military terrain, so to speak. you have identified the human terrain, which includes the problems of corruption in the karzai administration, and that is a challenge that has to be addressed in my view. and perhaps, yours as well.

i wonder if he could tell us whether you believe there is progress in that area. >> we have a line of operation within the campaign plant, which seeks to reduce the inflow of corruption. on those aspects in our relationship with afghanistan that could compromise our mission. to that end, we have leveraged task force transparency, working closely with the task force 2010 with respect to contracting to reduce the vulnerability is to money flowing directly into the pockets of the insurgents themselves. task force transparency is working very closely with our own agency here in the united states and with the international community on a series of actions i could ultimately provide support to

reducing corruption. we have recommended an illicit activities for afghanistan initiative. it received favorable consideration by the department of defense and i believe it is being considered for a full- blown interagency approach. we think that the afghan red finance and the british embassy and others to include partners with the drug enforcement administration in order to put the fbi and the department of justice, it is helping. and pres. karzai has spoken about this impunity, which must be shrugged off in order to become a functioning democracy.

he has created an executive council commission to attempt to defeat the organized criminal penetration and seizure of the borders and customs depot, which robs them daily of millions in annual report -- resources. as well as the ministry of defense has recently undertakenh is a complete survey of the ministry of defense led by the minister. everything from the recruiting and assignment to procurement of systems and weapons and paper facilities, it is a very comprehensive assessment which has been built to address the specific issue. the ministry of interior is taking a similar assessment

which will lay bare the corruption issues in the security ministries. >> it so be the shield for stability for of the state. >> what we are seeking to do is having effective work plans. we can check the plans. that is where we will see how serious everyone is. >> on a related note, i have observed some of the reports relating to human trafficking. there are about a country employees from other countries employed by contractors and. i will be introducing a measure

along with one other member. it has been identified by the commission on contracting as a problem as well. i do not know whether you have any observations. >> can you make a brief? >> you can respond in writing. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we have a lot of ground to cover and a short time to get there. let's start with the big themes. is this a defining time in the war on afghanistan? >> i believe it is. >> we really have not had it right over 10-years since general mcchrystal have we had the right strategy. >> i believe we have the right strategy now. >> we does have a right for the last several years. do you agree with me that

afghanistan is a center for this at the moment? >> i believe it is. >> given our history, it is essential for our credibility elsewhere. >> here is a comment. no one can guarantee success in war or politics. you can do it at your best. i have confidence in the plan. they have good hard questions. i've come to conclude that you and your plan represents the last best chance for success in afghanistan. do you agree? >> i concur. >> this is an essential moment in afghanistan. i want to say that there will be this on the road. you know that. >> this is the last best chance,

and no guarantees. >> here is my comment to my colleagues. i understand it is difficult back home. i believe that this is the last best chance. the only way we will fail as for our political system. they can understand the plan to make sure they have the resources. i can promise the president and the members of this committee i would everything on the republican side to give you the support you need. in terms of the cost, would you agree with me in the history of warfare the attack on this country on 9/11 back cost probably a million dollars to plan and execute was best return on investment in terms of this.

>> it is asymmetric. the place that attack came from is afghanistan. please think about what it would be like as the place we went to suit your. we have the same absolute opinion on this. what is the difference between 230,300 30,000 a year to maintain afghan soldiers? > do we know the difference? >> what i would suggest after all we have done that we should take that to the $3 billion of

annual cost. it is the best investment we can ever make to make sure did not have to go there. do you agree that the strategic is theship agreement turning point in the war? >> yes. >> do you agree that if we maintain the night raid as a military tactic the enemy will suffer greatly? >> he will. >> do you agree you never allow that program to be terminated and that you always strive for afghan sovereignty? >> i will. >> will you please tell the captain that he extend it into a year away from his family that he did not have to do. it bore great for it to you and

the afghan partners. >> thank you. >> to you agree with me that if we have a follow forest of the counter-terrorism four's strategically located in afghanistan, air bases, that is the ins of ed? >> that is part of the strategic partnership. >> that is the interest policy for this nation that never again would they go into terrorist hands. >> pakistan needs to quit betting on the tablet ban. they are the losers. >> it will stabilize afghanistan. >> tell me how the people of afghanistan few the one as a whole? >> there's no love lost. they consider that the darkness. >> what is the feeling on the grounds in afghanistan at 85% of

the people who want to live free about what we may or may not do? >> i think they are deeply concerned. >> i am telling everybody in this committee that not only will they feel better, but i will feel better. does this affect the taliban? >> the taliban and have not registered. >> to those that can believe you can kill a few terrorists, do you believe? >> is that the way to maintain perpetual security? >> it comes helping the many where they live, fight in to

feed these pastors. >> >> not just help them to be able to fight the get the population confidence that it is the bright force for them. >> >> i am done >> i really appreciated. i hate doing that. >> only our military could be accomplishing what we are accomplishing in the most difficult circumstances. every day that passes i stand in all of the leadership of our military and the sacrifices you make. some of my colleagues have talked on this. i will not fill the need to go into a. i spent time looking at contacting. we have $20 billion every construction money in iraq that cannot be accounted for.

we know and i can cite a number of projects to be built in iraq that prisons that are sitting up empty, water parks the stang crumbling, some of this was the aid project. there is this new thing we are doing. the military is engaging in major construction as opposed to what we have traditionally done in this country. >> this is new territory. i am aware of the projects we are funding.

i am aware of the two transportation projects. i am aware of the water projects. i know the money will complete these projects. what is new for this 400 million in aif? what is envisioned as we're going to start brand new. regardless of what senator brown says, we note that some of the security we have to buy, we know that they have no capability of sustaining many of these because of their gdp. they did not even have a national highway system with any kind of revenue that can even fix highways after we build them.

as i began on this committee, i have heart to heart with general petraeus about fixing broken windows. we're doing multimillion-dollar projects. i do not think we have seen the studies that show the country likes to comment that we're spending a lot of money into their government that is helping with the counterinsurgency. i need to know why are we reflexively asking for the almost billion dollars in surf and a high f or is there specific plans? or are there specific plans?

>> when i took command, one of the most important what i gave this fiscal responsibility. i told them that we have got to inshore that every dollar we spend is a dollar that alternately contributes to afghanistan pose a security. that is why we are moving. it is not that high this year. the we are going for the right kind of projects. we are going to continue to focus in that regard. we need it does not create additional dependency and some form of economic advantage. we need them to provide on the ground immediate assistance of an urgent nature to accomplish the mission. >> i really hope you'll consider

this. i want you to look at what we are building. i want you to look at the monies. it is significant. we have appropriated over $3 billion. we have a billion and a half that has got even been obligated. maybe it would be time to say we could do without its. >> we will not spend a dollar that we do not need to spend. that is my obligation to you. >> it might be something to help reassure the american people. we have on obligated -- unobligated money here. >> that is a very fair comment. i have identified many that i will not spend. i have done scrubs. we recognize the will not

obligate it all. we will make sure it that we will return the money if we do not need it. >> that sounds good. i think we have to build boats -- to go vote. >> our plan for fy13 and we need to agree on a case for the aif and how they will be sustainable. they can sit on the afghan resources of the site council. i agree we need to do better. we are working at it. we appreciate your support. we have got to do better. i worry that if we go down the path of new major ones that as the drawdown, a consideration you have is not the transition as relates to the security of

arch streets of what we will have to leave on the ground for the contractors. i think we'll end up with a situation like we did in iraq. we found ourselves pulling. we still had tens upon thousands of contractors on the ground. i want to make sure that those two pieces are getting wedded to get there and we're not going down the path with blinders on aif and more reconstruction realize it could be 2014 still building a dam with minimal chips on the ground in terms of any kind of secure protection. >> thank you very much. >> the good news is senator lieberman has come back in time for questions. we'll take a five minute break before his questions. wii thank you but very much for your questions. your testimony has been strong and clear and powerful. we will take a five minute break and then we will leave them enough time to get his

questions and and enough to have a few moments. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i will be happy to gaveled the hearing back to order. i has been as impressed by

everyone. thank you very much. as i reentered the room i would say i was impressed by your physical stamina. i am glad that mercy got the best of us. there have been some questions that have been expressed. this is generally one of support. the we're doing well militarily. there is a lot of life and treasure over a period of time. it is winnable.

there are moving terms. i wanted to go to statements he went to. at want to jot you out a little bit. he mentioned the counter productive role by to the neighbors. iran continues to support the insurgency. there were safe havens for our enemy that exists in pakistan. can we win this fight the bush sanctuary's continue to be

protected? >> i think we can. i believe it is going to require some pretty hard decisions with the afghans and eventually with respect to how they will dispose of their forces on the ground. the coast to the eastern corridor. it is under a threat under the taliban operating in they have enough of the afghan forces. we can build sufficient depth to protect both the population and the easement.

you're talking about more of the standing forest that we would have anticipated. >> the continued existence for our forces affect this. >> can you conceive of any way we could convince the pakistani to take a more aggressive action? >> we think there is significant opportunity. >> the pakistani is are dedicating to sufficing not the same necessarily insurgents.

they have suffered over 3000 dead in the past three years. they are wounded of their own military. they have had of a fight going on. there has been occasions in the past for the pakistani military in cooperation with our forces have got complementary operations have been valuable. we seek in the aftermath the opportunity to have this conversations again. i think there's real common ground where we can conduct complementary operations of the of the mission.

i hope we can seek opportunity for us to partner together across the border, not just for border cooperation, we are well on the way to restoring its, but to seek opportunity for their forces can partner in complementary operations to get at and squeeze some of these operations. >> i wish you well in those discussions. i think the movement of a very important. the agreement on a strategic partnership with afghanistan is an encouragement to pakistan. >> bowen to say something along the lines of what you just said.

we have seen pakistan taking a sip of again fight within their own borders. with aston to do one. we see behavior in the region. some people are not 100% sure the u.s. commitment to support the ansf. the strategic partnership is the commitment that president obama talked about. there are plans what the chicago summit. this is an important indicator. it will help send a message that the united states and not make the same mistake that we made in 1989. >> i cannot agree more. how about a quick word about

iran. he said they continue to support the insurgency. >> we have watched very closely the support that it has provided to the insurgents. it is relatively low level at this particular moment. the wind gauge their presence commitment to supporting it by the appearance of certain signature weapons. the irani military rocket. we saw them in large numbers on the battlefield. we're not seeing those now. we're seeing some support to the taliban. we're saying logistic support to them as well. we're going to keep a very close eye on the signature weapons. with think that will be an indicator of the desire to up the ante.

>> i appreciate that. let me ask a few more questions. the me ask you some questions. i do not know that anybody has eschewed to compare the cost per trip. >> is that a number you have? >> it is significantly different. >> much less expensive. >> the afghan national security forces are not just what people would say in the army or the marines. there are other specialized units. how does that break down roughly speaking? >> the army will be 195,000. the air force will be about

8000. the newly formed force would have some numbers of tens and thousands of forces as well. they will be largely explored. but in the afghan military is the number of bird creates -- of brigades. it is the form of extra commanders. they saw what they had iit. there are significant special force capabilities. there is a growing ground force

capability. we're still not recorded 2352. we will still be building threte 352 forest. >> last question is this. i appreciate what you testified to the house. you are not really going to be in a position to make a recommendation to the president about about whether the u.s. should drop down the troops that will be there after the surge troops are until later in the year. that seems so logical to me. the only calendar that matters to use the calendar on the grounds.

it seems to me they have to wait to this fighting season is over and see what the impact has been. let me ask you generally, what other kinds of factors you will be considering in reaching for judgments on the pace of the drawdown? >> the steady pace constructs is a decision that is made elsewhere. i will make the recommendation of the amount of force. there are a number of things that will be occurring now could 2013 that will dictate both the tempo of the battle and the progress of transition. we will have our advisers into

the national security forces. most of the teams will have been in place by the end of 2012. willing to provide cover for them in the short term until we begin to see their effects are to take hold. >> we will also see the progress of transition in the lisbon summit context. we will probably see the latter part of 2012 and early part of 2013 to be determined. we're going to see the fifth occurred and probably be announced in the mid to latter part of the summer. these are going to be the most challenging. the ansf goes into the lead for

the security of the population with the progress of each tranche. it does not mean it will not need help. i anticipate the ansf will still need help and support and their counterinsurgency operations. we will need combat power to be able to do that. those are factors that weigh in of that. people have almost certain continued presence of this. >> that is why they troubled me. and now they trouble u.s. well. we can hear the enemy. we can convince them to reintegrate. they can regenerate right next

door. i appreciate what you said. you clarify something about this. though the afghan security forces will be taking the lead in combat, that is the mean that we can precipitate loosely -- precipitously cut it. you have a backup role. we will need to be involved in combat but not behind. >> did you want to add anything on that? >> >> let me say three things. the first is that there has been speculation and reporting in the press that there are options being developed for reductions

lower than the 68,000. that is not the case. president obama is going to make a decision about the size and scope of the drawdown following getting the force to the 16,000. that is the appropriate time. right now it looks like the appropriate time could be the fall after the reductions are taken. if you're to come earlier and say he is ready, frankly it could be in either direction. we would want to make sure it got up to the chain of command. it is very much the case that our partners like to what we are doing and to our commitments to think about what they are going to do as they consider how they make the case to their public.

when i was in afghanistan and came back through brussels, i had a chance to talk to 13 of our largest contributors of forces. this was a message they gave very clearly. they want not just to have the conversation with us in general, they want to understand where we are. that is an important operation. >> thank you very much. thank you for your testimony that has really been extraordinary. you know better than i that the lesson in history teaches us that military and democracy can be winning a war on the battlefield and losing on the political battlefield. i think your testimony today

has given me confidence that it is not going to be the case here. the political decision makers are going to be guided by what is happening in the battlefield. thanks to your leadership, we are winning on the battlefield. this will give the support to carry that to the finish. god bless you very much. this hearing is adjourned.

>> the supreme court will hear oral arguments last week in a series of cases of the constitutionality of the health- care law and will provide same- day audio monday through wednesday. he can hear the oral arguments each day as they are released, about 1:00 p.m. eastern. our coverage will be on c-span3, c-span radio and online at cspan.org. >> middle and high school students from across the country showed which parts of the constitution was important to them and why. we will air the top 27 videos.

for a preview of the winning videos, a czech studentcam.org congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's competition. >> president obama on energy policies. in about 20 minutes, and john boehner's news briefing. the party leaders in the house outline next week schedule that includes debate on the gop's proposed budget. later we will be erik general john allen on military operations in afghanistan. >> several live events to tell you about. the heritage foundation hosts a discussion on the decision not to fund a training program for army airline flight crew members. on our companion network, a

forum on next week's supreme court or all arguments. this event at the cato institute .s live >> next week, think of the fdr memorial. it was three plus designs or they got to a final plan. i think that we should not be afraid of looking at this issue. we're building something for the centuries. we want to get it right. >> they a memorial to 34th president. what sunday. -- watched it sunday. >> president obama says he will expedite the permit process for

the southern half of the transcanada pipeline. he was at the pipeline in oklahoma to talk about energy policy and prices. this is a little less than 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, and the president of the united states. >> hello, oklahoma. it is good to be here. have a seat. wonderful to see you. it is good to be back in oklahoma. everybody looks like they are doing just fine. thank you so much for your hospitality.

it is wonderful to be here. yesterday, i visited nevada and new mexico to talk about what we are calling and "all of the above" energy strategy. it is a strategy that will keep us on that -- on track to further reduce our dependence on oil, put more people back to work, and ultimately, help to curb this spike in gas prices that we are seeing year after year after year. today, i've come to cushing, an oil town -- [applause] -- because producing more oil and gas here at home has been and will continue to be a critical part of the "all of the above" energy strategy. under my administration, america is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. [cheers]

that is important to know. over the last three years, my administration has opened up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. we are opening up more than 75% of our potential oil resources offshore. we have quadrupled the number of our operating rates to a record high. if we have added the enough new oil and gas pipelines to encircle the earth and then some. we are drilling all over the place right now. that is not the challenge. that is not a problem. the problem in a place like cushing is that we are actually producing so much oil and gas in places like north dakota and colorado that we do not have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it to where it needs to go, both to refineries and then eventually across the country and around the world. there is a bottleneck right

here because we cannot get enough of the oil to our refineries fast enough. and if we could, we would be able to increase our oil supplies at a time when they are needed as much as possible. right now, a company called the trans canada, has applied to build a new pipeline to speed more oil to cushing -- from cushing to oil refineries in the coast. today, have instructed my administration to cut through the red tape, the bureaucratic hurdles to make this project a priority and get it done. [applause] you would not know all of this from listening to the television set. this whole issue of the keystone pipeline has generated a lot of controversy and a lot of

politics. and that is because the regional route from canada into the united states was planned through an area in nebraska that supplies some drinking water for nearly 2 million americans, and irrigation for a good portion of america's crop land. and nebraska, of all political sites, including the governor there, raised concerns about the safety of the route through there. to be extra careful of -- that the construction of the pipeline to an area like that would not be putting the help of the american public at risk, our experts wanted more time to review the project. unfortunately, congress decided they wanted their own time line. not the company, not the experts, but members of congress who decided this might be a fun political issue decided to lead

and make it impossible for us to make an informed decision. what we have said to the company is, we are happy to review for -- future permits. and today, we are making this new pipeline from cushing to the gulf a new priority. the southern leg of it, we will make it a priority and get it done. the northern portion of it, we will have to review properly to make sure the health and safety of the american people are protected. that is common sense. but the fact is, out -- my administration has approved dozens of new oil and gas pipelines in the last three years, including ones from canada. and as long as i am president, we will continue to encourage oil interest -- and infrastructure and do it in a way that protects the health and safety of the american people. but we do not have to choose one or the other.

we can do both. [applause] if you guys are talking to your friends, neighbors, co-workers, relatives, and wondering -- and they are wondering what is going on in oil production, you tell them anyone who suggests that somehow we are suppressing domestic oil production is not paying attention. [applause] they are not paying attention. you also need to tell them that anyone who says they are -- who says that just drilling, more oil or gas, by itself will bring down gas prices tomorrow or the next day, or even next year, they are also not paying attention. they are not playing it straight. because we are drilling more and producing more. but the fact is, producing more oil at home is not enough by itself to bring gas prices down. the reason is, we have an oil market that is worldwide. i have been saying for last few weeks i want everyone to understand this.

we use 20% of the world oil. we only produce 2% of the world's oil. if we opened up an oil rig on the south lawn, if we have one right now on the washington monument, even if we drill every little bit of this great country of ours, we would still have to buy the rest of our needs from someplace else if we keep on using the same amount of oil. the price of oil will still be set by the global market. that means every time there is tension that rises in the middle east, which is what is happening right now, so will the price of gas. the main reason the gas prices are higher is because people are worried about what is happening with iran. it does not have to do with domestic oil production. in has to do with the oil

markets looking and saying, you know, if something happens there could be trouble. so we are going to price a little higher just in case. that is not the future we want. we do not want to be vulnerable to something happening on the other side of the world that is somehow affecting our economy, or hurting a lot of folks who have to drive to get to work. that is not the future i want for america or for our kids. i want us to control our own energy destiny. i want to determine our own course. yes, we're going to keep emphasizing greed -- production. we're also going to be looking at how we can have renewable energy sources and we have to become more efficient. that means producing more biofuels, which can be good for the economy and the environment. it means more fuel-efficient cars -- fuel-efficient cars. it means more wind power. we want every source of american made energy.

i do not want the energy jobs of tomorrow going to other countries. i want them here in the united states of america. that is what can "all above -- all of the above" energy strategy is all about. yesterday, i went to nevada to the largest solar plant of anywhere in the country. hundreds of workers built it. is powering thousands of homes, and they are expanding to tens of thousands more as they put more capacity on line.

after 30 years of not doing anything, we finally increased fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. and americans are now designing and building cars that will go twice as far on the same gallon of gas as they did in the past decade. that will save the average family thousand dollars over the life of a car. and it will save companies a lot of money because they are hurt by rising fuel costs as well. all of these steps have helped put america on the path to greater energy independence. since i took off, our dependence on foreign oil has gone down every year. last year, we imported 1 million fewer barrels per day than the year before. think about that. in america, at a time that we are growing, we are importing less oil from overseas because we are using it smarter and more efficiently. america is now importing less than half the oil we used for the first part of the decade. the key is to keep it going. oklahoma, we got to make sure that we do not go backward, but we keep going forward if we're going to end our dependence on foreign oil.

if we're going to bring gas prices down once and for all as opposed to just playing politics with it, then we have to develop every source of energy that we have, every new technology that could help us become more efficient. we've got to use our innovation, our brainpower, our creativity. we've got to have a vision for the future, not just constantly looking back at the past. that is where we need to go. that is what america can do. america has always been about building the future. we are always at the cutting edge, ahead of the curve. whether it is thomas edison or the wright brothers or steve jobs, we're always thinking about what the next thing is. and that is how we have to think about energy. and if we do, not only will we seek jobs and growth and success

here in cushing, okla., but across the country. god bless you guys and god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by ♪ [cheers and applause]

>> during john boehner's weekly meeting, his book about the presence check to oklahoma and the republican budget plan coming to the floor. this is about 50 minutes. >> >> good morning. gas prices are rising and americans are just registered with the gap between the president's words and his actions. it the president now says he

supports the republican and all of the above energy strategy for our country. for three years, is the minister is it has made every of urgency to block and restrict the energy production in our country. he claims he wants to address rising gas prices. his policies are making matters worse. the only action he has taken hasn't of lobbying staff. he is out in oklahoma at trying to take credit for part of a pipeline that is not even require his approval. this is what i call the obama energy gap. the cannon and north dakota, we have all this oil. -- in canada and north dakota, we have all this oil.

president obama is taking credit for a pipeline that has already gotten its approval. the idea that is going to expedite this will have no impact on the construction of this pipeline. let me explain something. right now this year north dakota will become the second-largest oil-producing states in our country. there are 3100 tank trains every day that come out of north dakota and have to go all the way to the gulf because of the lack of this pipeline. it is north dakota oil that needs to get down to our refineries in the gulf. the president can take credit for having nothing to do with the bottom half of this pipeline. there is only one permit that requires his approval across our

national boundaries. that is the keystone decision on the upper half of this. we have 165,000 miles of pipeline that operate successfully every day. congress passed a pipeline safety bill to increase the safety standards on this pipeline. the president should listen to the american people and allow the pipeline to go forward. there is a big gap between what the president promises and what he talks about in the accidents -- action that he is taking. >> mr. speaker, i saw you voted on a balanced budget amendment. why is this budget coming through? >> as you, what is driving this

is baby boomers begin to retire. 10,000 baby boomers everyday are filing for social security and medicare. americans are living longer. this is why i was so serious about trying to work with the administration to find a real agreements that would slow this process down and began to deal with our deficit. >> there are many things such as the transportation bill. i think the jobs bill will move through the house with a

bipartisan vote. i expect the senate will send that bill back. we will come to an agreement pretty quickly. when it comes to things like the highway bill. that used to be very bipartisan. it was greased to be bipartisan with 6371 year marks. you take the year marks the way and all of a sudden people are beginning to look at the real policy behind it. each of these bills will rise or fall on their own merits. >> do you expect to have 218 republican votes in the house to pass the ryan budget plan? >> that is a question for the whip. i am confident we will have the votes. >> will never popular refrains is you do not want to kick the can down the road. you want a three month

extension. how is that not kicking the can down the road? >> it does not address the issue of rising gas prices and energy. we believe that if we are going to reauthorize the highway bill, american energy production ought to be a critical part of it. we look at the budget and we see the whole and the transportation funding because there is not sufficient gas tax receipts coming in to fund the infrastructure needs, opening up federal lands for more oil and gas production would help fill that gap so that we can have the money to rebuild our roads and bridges. >> statement -- what do you think he should do? >> i think the state central committee will resolve that question. the sooner resolved the better. >> [unintelligible]

it just 248 members of congress have paid family members to their campaigns and family members as close as a spouse or siblings. do you think there is a problem with that? >> i think all members should be held to the highest ethical standards. i believe virtually every member of congress tries to do that. i think that question has been out there for some time. the rules of the house make it very clear that having relatives under official payroll is against the rules of the house. i think when it comes to the issue of campaign funds, if there is legitimate work being done, people ought to be paid for it. i am not aware of all of the allegations. why are you not sitting down? >> the seat is taken and i have

my recorder. on transportation you just described with the senate bill lacked. it was last week when you told your conference that if they did not come up with the republican bill it would be the senate or something like that. what changed between seven days ago and today? >> we are continuing to work with our members on how best to address rebuilding the nation's infrastructure and addressing rising gas prices and the need to have more energy production. >> what is your take on the recent analysis that gas prices do not go down when domestic drilling happens? >> i think it does not pass the straight face test. the problem is we do not have enough supply and we have more demand. when you have more demand, you will have higher prices. there is no question that americans are sick and tired of

spending $500 billion of their hard earned money to countries around the world, most of whom do not like as a whole lot, to pay for our oil doubt we could be developing here in america. this is about an 80% issue in our country. for 35 years we have not had a national energy policy. republicans have been adamant for years that we ought to have it all of the above natural energy strategy. for win development, solar, nuclear, and for more oil and gas development in our country. he president has continued to block the drilling of reserves on federal lands. the facts are there. >> do you support mr. tanner's plan? >> there is a lot of conversation going on about it. i think they are doing good work

to try to find a common ground to deal with the issue. >> there are a lot of arguments about what is wrong with the health care -- [unintelligible] the think five justices will see the way think -- will see things the way your party does? >> i have no idea what the supreme court will do. >> it will be back above fy12 levels by f why 18. how is that a hollowing out if you will be back above and fy18? is there a danger you are developing a patch that every year there will be incentives to kaelin? >> -- fill in the? >> we should have never had the

sequester. it was the president who actin assisted -- it was the president who insisted at with the debt limit there should not be a debate or action. basically he got to authorize the second 1.2 trillion dollar increase in the debt limit. that is where the problem started. i always thought the super committee had a real chance to do good work, to produce savings so the sequester would not kick in. i think the sequester will hurt our department of defense, will hurt our ability to do what americans believe is our most basic responsibility, to provide security for the american people. i believe secretary panetta believes the same thing. i think the white house believes that the sequester is an

acceptable. that is why the house will act this spring to replace the sequestered. hopefully in some time near in the future, congress will really act to deal with long-term spending problem and our deficit problem. we cannot continue to spend money we do not have. >> the you expect changes will be made to the budget before it comes to a vote? the think it is getting the right plan as it is? >> let me go back a little bit. we over here in the house are working on a budget, going through the real work that it takes to come to grips with our fiscal problems. the senate has done nothing. there has not been effort in the senate. three years and they have failed

to move a budget. when people get critical about "you on the past it out of committee by one vote," we are actually doing the real work that is required to address long-term problems. i believe we will be successful in getting it done. >> speaker john boehner mentioned the republican plan coming to the floor next week. before the house adjourned, party leaders talk about next week's schedule. this is a little less than 25 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule of the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker and i'm pleased to yield to my

friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor. mr. cantor: thank you. i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislate business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business, and last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. no votes are expected in the house on friday. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few bills under suspension of the rules which will be announced by close of business tomorrow. the hoe will also consider h.r. 3309, federal communications commission process reform act, authored by congressman greg walden of oregon. and the house will consider and pass a budget resolution. mr. speaker, we also expect to take further action on our nation's infrastructure with

authority expiring at the end of next week. finally, i'm hopeful that the senate will clear the house's bipartisan jobs act bill today. i look forward to the president signing into law. i thank the gentleman from maryland and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the information with respect to the legislation that will be considered next week. i no that he talks about the highway bill, the infrastructure bill that the -- that is penng. obviously we had expected to consider that bill on the hou floor on our side, at least, we are -- our expectation is that it was going to be a number of weeks ago. it has not come here. as i expect we are talking about an extension of some period of time. we are concerned that you rightfully, personally and as a party made it very clear that

certainty was an important aspect of growing our economy. that's a proposition on which i agree. i think you're absolutely right. i think that we need to create ceainty and clearly we need to create jobs. i said this morning, mr. leader, to the press that i'm sure you get it as well that the public says to me, when are you guys going to start working together, when are you going to get something done in a bipartisan way. the senate has done that, i say to my friend. the senateas done it in an overwhelming fashion. they had 74, there would have been 75, but mr. lautenberg was absent, was for the bill. 3/4 of the senate voted for what was a very bipartisan bill and as a matter of fact, half the senate republicans essentially voted for that bill. it had, as you know, a

technical flaw in the bill and that it had revenues which need to be initiated in the house of representatives. reprentative tim bishop of new york has introduced the senate bill which has overwhelming support in e united states senate and very frankly in my view would have at least 218 votes in this house, at least 218 votes in this house if it were put on the floor. the speaker has said in the past that he is committed to letting the house work its will. obviously referring to open amendments process. but obviously if a bill doesn't come to the floor, we have no opportunity either to amend or to vote. that's been one of our problems, of course, with the jobs bill that we hope would have been brought to the floor that the president proposed.

that has not been to the floor. i ask my friend, rather than continue to delay, and both sides have done that on the highway bill, to give that competence of which you have spoken and others on your side of the aisle have spoken i think absolutely correctly, in order to give the confidence that we can in fact act, that we can work in a bipartisan fashion, i would ask my friend whether or not he would be prepared to bring, as the majority leader, to bring the bishop bill to the floor which again is the senate bill, supported by 75 members of the united states senate, half of the republican caucus in the senate, and which will give some degree of certainty for a highway program that clearly is also a jobs bill. which will he an impact on almost two million jobs and maybe another million jobs along

the way. we think that's the way that would be good for our country to proceed and it would send a message because i think it would get bipartisan support if we -- if you brought it to the floor. that it would send a good pleanl to the country, that -- message to the country, that, yes, from time to time we can work together. very frankly, mr. leader, if we did that it wod be consistent with eve transportation bill that we've passed since 1956 under dwight eisenhower where we worked together in a bipartisan fashion. this is the first time that i've experienced a partisan divide. i mean, people have had differences of opinion. a partisan divide on the highway bill. as you know, senator boxer and senator inhalf came together and agreed. that's a pretty broad ideological spectrum of the united states senate. they came together, they agreed and they led the effort to pass

that bipartisan bill. i would very much hope that, mr. majority leader, that you could bring that bill to the floor and see whether or not in fact it could pass. i think that would be good for the country and i yield to my friend for his comments. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i would respond by saying to him that, no, i'm not prepared to bring that bill to the floor because i differ with him in his assumption that there would be enough bipartisan support to pass that bill in the house. and from all that i know about what's in the senate bill, there is a lot of disagreement over how that bill was constructed as far as house members are concerned and i would say to the gentleman, our plan is very clear. we have been outspoken on this, we do not want to disrupt the flow of federal transportation dollars which is why we'll be bringing to the floor next week a bill to provide for an extension of 90 days so that perhaps, as the gentleman would

like, as would i, we could come together as o bodies and two parties on an agreement to provide more certainty. but as to the gentleman's suggestion that we need to be doing this to be consistent with what has been done historically, i would say to the gentleman, he knows as well as i that we are in very, very fficult economic times. we have never faced the kind of problems that we face today as a country from a fiscal standpoint. and unftunately transportation funding is no different. we're just out of money. and so we're trying to take the approach that most american families and businesses would take and that is to try and spend within our means, to come up with some innovative ways to look at transportation needs and demands in the future and our being able to meet them. and we look forward to working with the gentleman, mr. speaker, in a bipartisan fashion to try and affect that end. i yield back.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. t i will say again to the gentleman, you know, we've been down this path before. we've been down this path before where the senate was able to reach a bipartisan agreement on legislation very important to jobs, the economy and to the confidence of america. and that bipartisan pie of legislation would have enjoyed the support i think certainly the overwhelming majority, almost unanimous support on our side and a bipartisan agreement. i don't mean a democratic proposal from the senate but a bipartisan agreement that came from the senate. and that dealt of course with payroll taxes, extending those. and ultimately we did that. we took that bill. but i would say to my friend that the speaker indicated he wanted a bill on this floor. ve been asking you for a number of weeks if it was going to come to t floor, for

approximately a month now. that bill hasn't come to the floor. we all know it has to come to the floor because there's very substantial disi agreement within your party -- disagreement within your party about that bill. everybody talks about it. we understand that. i say to my friend that he and i do have a disagreement, i think it would enjoy bipartisan support on this floor if you brought the bishop bill, the senate bipartisan bill to the oor. but the only way we're really going to be able to find that out, not by me saying i think -- you saying, i think it wouldn't, there's a very easy way to see whether it would and that is to bring it to the floor next week. the gentleman is absolutely correct, i don't think there's anybody hopefully that wants to disrupt and have literally hundreds of thousands of people thrown out of work or not have opportunities for work. we know the construction trades in particular have been very badly hit by the lack of

construction that's going on. so you can have your opinion, i can have my opinion, but there is a way to determine whether or not in fact we can get bipartisan agreement and that is, as i said, the speaker has indicated, let the house work its will. the only way the house can work its will, having been majority leader, is for the majority leader to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote, then you may be right, i may be right , but we will know, it won't have to be speculation, we will know, and if i'm right and we do pass that bill, then next week before march 31, before the expiration of the current highway authorization, we can send a bill to the president of the united states and he will sign the senate bill. we don't know that he will sign a bill that, you know, is still languishing in your committee,

because haven't seen the final parameters of that bill, because it's obviously pretty controversial on your side of the aisle. so i would hope again, if you want certainty, we have an opportunity for certainty. we have an opportunity with a bipartisan bill that the senate's passed. i don't know why we're rejecting that bipartisanship. i know we have, as a matter of fact, the gentleman says, well, this is a unique economic time. he's right. it seems to me that's a greater argument for trying to embrace bipartisan agreement and move forward with giving certainty to the construction industry, to states, to municipalities, to counties on what is going to be available to them to plan and to pursue infrastructure projects critical to commerce and to their communities. so, i regret that the gentleman has indicated that that's not of

an option that he will consider, but a short-term extension seems to be the continuation of uncertainty, not the alaying of uncertainty. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to make another commenor not. mr. caor: mr. speaker, i would just say to the gentleman, i guess we're going to agree to disagree. we're dealing with the reality that we don't have the money and we're trying to fashion a path forward that both sides can agree upon. obviously we cannot agree upon that next week with all the differences that still exist. which is why we are creating the construct of a 90-day extension, then giving us the possibility to get into conference with the senate to try and produce a longer term transportation funding bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i won't pursue it any further, mr. leader, but you've been unable to get agreement within your party on this side of the house -- of the capitol

for well over a month. i hope you can get there, i hope -- i would hope you would get there in a bipartisan fashion so that mr. rahall and mr. mica could agree on a bill, which has been my experience in the 31 years i've been here. it's not my experience this year, that hasn't happened. but almost invariabley and i think for the years yove been here you've experienced that as well. let me ask you now with respect to the budget, do you expect the budget to come to the floor you? indicated that and if so would that be wednesday? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, the gentleman is correct. we will be beginning debate on the budget wednesday and likely concluding that debate and vote on thursday. mr. hoyer: normally as you know, we've had alternatives made in order. we of course want to make in order an amendment which will guarantethat medicare will be

available to our seniors and that we will not decimate medicaid which we think is appropriate for our seniors and we also want to make sure that we have revenues that ca sustain health care for seenos -- senis, education for kids, help for our communities. will the gentleman be able to tell me whether or not in fact alternatives will be made in order by the rules committee that would be offere either by the minority ranking member of the committee and/or others as has historically en the case? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, yes, we pect that to be the case. obviously i disagree with his characterization of our budget. we are in fact saving the medicare program in a bipartisan fashion. i yield back. mr. hoyer: was there a

bipartisan vote in the committee on that? i thought it was a totally partisan vote in the committee. was i incorrect on that? mr. cantor: will the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: yes. mr. cantor: the gentleman knows very well of what i refer to, that the disproportion at cause of our -- disproportionate cause of our deficit has to do with health care entitlements and we actually, as the gentlan knows, last year and this year are proposing a solution, a plan, that does not resolve the issue overnight. but it puts us on a pooth towards balancing the budget -- path toward balancing the budget and this year our budget chairman has worked together with the senator from oregon on the gentleman's side of the aisle in the senate to propose a solution that responds to some of the complaints about the path that was taken before. and again it is a bipartisan solution, it is a plan to save

medicare and unlike the gentleman's party, nor his president, or his president, we are actually proposing a solution to e problem and saving the program for this generation and the next. so again i am sure the gentleman disagrees with my characterization, i with his, but to answer his question, to get back on track as far as the schedule and the fashion in which these bills are going to be brought to the floor, yes, consistent with precedent, we will be allowing full bstitutes to be offered on both sides of the aisle. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. last thing i would ask the gentleman, am i correct that the agreement that was reached between our parties, which led to the passage of the budget control act in a bipartisan fashion, does not reflect the subs -- substance that have agreement as it relates to the discretionary spending number for fiscal year 2013?

senator mcconnell is quoted as you know as saying that was an agreement that was reached and th he expected to be pursued. he was not referring to the action of the bget committee, but he wareferring to the agreement the discretionary number. am i correct -- am i correct that that number is not being distribute agreement that was reached in order to get a bipartisan vote on e budget control act, which we passed, which made sure that this country did not default on its debts for the first time in history, am i correct that that number is not the number that is reflected in the budget? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i respond to the gentleman by saying it is our view that the agreement reached in august at the top line was that, a cap. and we all know we've got to do something about spending in ts country and the top line or

302-a within our budget resolution will reflect that top line provided in the budget resolution for the second year of the budget that we posed last year. again, we view it very much that we need to continue to try, at least try to save taxpayer dollars when we're generating over $1 trillion of deficits every year. and i think the taxpayers expect no less. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments but i will tell the gentleman, if we're going to have negotiations and we have one number and you have anotr number and we agree on a number and en we pass a bill which reflects that number, put it in law, it doesn't say it's a cap, it says that will be the number. . as we pass a budget we say that will be the number. this is the law. as was observed by others on the other side of the capitol, but i observe it here as well, if we

are going to have those kinds of negotiations, it's sort of like the guy comes up to you and says, look, i got something to sell you. you want to buy it? and the guy says, yeah, let's negotiate on price. you come to a price of $100, and then you come to settle and the guy says, well, that was my top number. i'm going to give you $92 for that item. you don't have a mooting of the minds -- meeting the minds as the contract requires. very frankly, nobody on our side and frankly don't think anybody on your side that negotiated the deal, i don't mean that didn't vote for it, and as a matter of fact i know for a fact the speakerer, and i believe yourself, were quoted that was the number, we ought to stick with it. clearly mr. rogers believes that was the number that was agreed to. we are not going to be able to agree on things if all of a sudden it comes -- that was a notional thing we did.

not an agreent. a lot of our peopl voted on that to make sure, a, we didn't go int default as a country, and b, that was not the number we wanted. it clearly was not the number your side wanted, but it was a number we agreed upon. it seems to me that if we are going to try to keep faith wit one another and with the law that we passed, that we should stick with what we agreed to. i understand that we want to bring the budget deficit down. as a matter of fact on this side of the aisle i have made those comments and i have been criticized by some on my side as you well know. yes, we do need to get a handle on the budget. we are going to have a real debate on the deficit and debt. and i have been working very hard on that. we are going to have a debate on whether or not your budget does that. we have had disagreements all the years i have been here on that, and performae has not reflected from my standpoint that the representations made have always worked out.

perhaps on either side. but i regret, i regret deeply, mr. majority leader, that we have reached an agreement, based upon that agreement this house took an action t took a bipartisan action, and it passed a piece of legislation that was critically important to make sure that america did not go into default. and now we see seven months later, cross fingers, we really didn't mean that, it was a cap. nobody on our side, and there was no mention in the law, nor was there any mention in the negotiations, that that was a cap not a number. unless the gentleman wants to say something further, i yield back. i yield to my friend. mr. can'ter: thank you. i just say to the gentleman this is somewhat of an academic diussion given the senate is not going to pass a budget. i remind the gentleman again, it takes two houses to go and reconcila budget, and it takes

two houses, to parties, to go forward. we look forward to working with the gentleman. i told him it is our belief that we need to respond to the urgency of the fiscal crisis and do everying we can to bring down the level of spending in this town and look forward to working with the gentleman towards that end. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i look forward to next week debating how we bring that deficit down. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. >> sees ben's coverage continues on saturday. we will cover primaries in the district of columbia, maryland,

and wisconsin, with connecticut, delaware, new york, pennsylvania, and good island near the end of the month. followed by primaries in nebraska and oregon. in a few moments, john allen, the commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan, testifies on military operations there. in three and a half hours, president obama on energy policy and prices. and then, john boehner is news briefing with reporters. on tomorrow morning's washington journal, tom cole talks about the house gop 2013 budget proposal that was released this week. phil donahue discusses his film

body of four. india says it professor at the johns hopkins blumberg's school talks about how many americans are without health insurance. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. in march, 1979, c-span began televising the house of representatives. it is now available on tv, radio, and online. >> when they could desert storm, i reviewed every one of them osama the ahead of personal responsibility for. the general felt the same way, we knew there were going into a very dangerous conflict, perhaps. we want to give them every benefit that would allow them to come home safely.

i am more distressed than any member of this committee could ever be that there are veterans who are suffering illnesses that may have resulted in the surface in the gulf. i do not know if those illnesses are a service or not. i think we have to keep that as a hypothesis until we find out otherwise. we have to get to the bottom of this. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. >> afghanistan war commanding general john allen believes the afghan president is committed to partner and with u.s. forces for the long term. recent events, like the killing of 16 civilians last week, has affected what he called the core of the relationship between the two countries. this testimony is 3.5 hours.

>> the committee meets to receive testimony on the campaign in afghanistan. no witnesses are jon miller and general john allen, commander of the international security assistance force. a warm welcome and thank you to you both. i'm going to interrupt this moment to take care of some nominations. we have a quorum present. i will ask the committee to consider a list of 246 military nominations. they have all been before the committee.

is there a motion to report the military nominations? is there second? all in favor say aye. the motions carry. our troops in afghanistan are being asked to perform dangerous missions. general allan, on behalf of the committee, please pass along our unwavering support for our military men and women serving with you in afghanistan, our gratitude for their courageous and dedicated service. talking about families, i know you have with your wife. and your daughter. i hope i got the names correctly. i got a mixed up earlier. we are delighted that they are here. >> thank you, senator.

>> the success of our mission depends on building the capacity security forces to take the lead for security in their country. yes-afghan partnering has been critical to the mission, from native training missions to partnering with units in the field and on up to advisors in ministries and. that has been tested by the disturbing events in the last few weeks, following the violence following the and regrettable burnings of korans. tragic and incomprehensible killing of 16 civilians apparently by a u.s. soldier has further strained relationship between united states and afghanistan. last week president obama and president karzai reaffirmed the common commitment to completing the process of transition in afghanistan.

in a coordinated press statement, the two presidents reiterated their support for the approach agreed upon at the two dozen -- 2010 nato summit in lisbon. this calls for an afghan security forces to assume full responsibility for security across the country by the end of 2014. this morning i want to focus on a number -- on another part of that statement. both presidents said they shared the goal of building capable afghan security forces so afghans are increasingly in charge of their own security. "with the lead for combat operations shifting to afghan forces with u.s. forces in support in 2013." general allen assured me that nato's transfer of full

responsibility for security across afghanistan in 2014 always assumed shifting the lead in combat operations to afghans in all five so-called areas of afghanistan by 2013. that is good news to me. i say good news because it has always been my belief the success in afghanistan depends on building the capacity of the afghan army and police said that afghans are in the lead in providing security for their own country, not isap forces, and to ensure that that happens by continuing to reduce our forces. the afghans want their own forces providing for their own security. that is what we heard when we met with village elders at their council meeting in helmand province 2 1/2 years ago. when asked how long u.s. forces

should stay, one elder told me only long enough to train our security forces and then leave. after that you will be welcome to visit us, not as soldiers, but as guests. i hope our witnesses will explain in some detail this morning how the 2013 and 2014 dates are in sync as well as how the process of phased transition agreed to by all in lisbon will unfold over the coming months and years. general allen, i hope you explain that transition to an afghan lead. [no audio] when the transition is not to be completed until 2014. in addition we need to know what this transition means for the mission of u.s. and

coalition forces. secretary panetta has said that as security forces assumed the lead, isap will move to a support role, and although they will remain fully combat capable. it appears even though afghan security forces will be in the lead starting in 2013, combat operations in parts of afghanistan, while the transition process continues to completion in 2014. i also understand the plan after 2014 is for the afghan security forces to receive coalition support such as the joystick and intelligence support and u.s. special operations forces will likely be partnered with their afghan counterparts in conducting counterterrorism

operations. we also need to know what the transition process needs for the pace of u.s. troop reductions in afghanistan. last june, president obama said after the 33,000 troops u.s. search force was brought home by the end of this summer, u.s. troop levels will continue to draw down "at a steady pace." yet, the fiscal 2013 defense budgets for overseas contingency operations is based on an assumption of 68,000 u.s. troops remaining in afghanistan throughout the 2013 fiscal year. we will be asking you whether you support continuing to drop down u.s. forces at a steady pace, as the president said, after the 68,000 troop level is

reached by september, and we would also like to know when you expect to make your recommendation, general, on post-surge reduction of forces in afghanistan starting after september of this year. given the importance of having capable afghan national security forces take over the security lead throughout afghanistan, when i was surprised and i was concerned about news accounts of a u.s. proposal to reduce the size of the afghan forces by a third after 2014. apparently based on questions of the affordability of sustaining a larger afghan forces. according to a "wall street journal" , the united states proposes reducing the size of the afghan security forces to 230,000 after 2014.

that article cited the tenants general bolger lieutenant general boler say this proposal is based in part of what the international community will provide financially. i believe our commanders should be providing their ad in the fairy of advice based on what they believe the afghan securities will need to successfully maintain security, not based on their gas about affordability two years down the road. but in my view, it is cost- effective to sustain a larger afghan security force when

compared to the costs in billions of dollars and the lives of military men and women of having u.s. coalition forces maintain security in afghanistan. it may be penny wise, but it would be pound foolish to put at risk the hard-fought gains we and our coalition partners and the afghans have achieved rather than support an afghan security force that is right size to provide security to the afghan people and to prevent a taliban return to power. our relationship with the afghanistan will continue beyond completion of the security transition in 2014. the strategic partner agreement being negotiated between united states and afghanistan will play an important role in defining the shape of that bilateral relationship. the recent memorandum of understanding on detention operations signed by general allan and afghan defense ministers at just one of the main obstacles to including the strategic partner agreement.

another issue in those strategic partnership terps is the conduct of night raids by coalition and afghan forces for the afghan officials have called for an end to night raids, alleging such operations are destructive to afghan lives and lead to civilian casualties. what is often ignored in the united states and in afghanistan is that afghan soldiers participate in all my great operations. in december, general allan issued an isap tactical directive on operations to

minimize the disruption and concern caused by night operations to law-abiding afghan citizens. that directive clearly states that all coalition night operations, are partnered operation,s, "carried out specially trained afghan soldiers and policemen who are increasingly taking on responsibility for the command and control of night operations with a view to transitioning this responsibility to them entirely as their capacity develops." it directs that the afghan security forces on night raids should be encouraged to take the lead, to be the first to make contact with local afghans in their homes, and be the first force seen and heard by local cultures. searches are always to be conducted by afghan security forces when available, and female personnel are always to be used for searching women and men -- women and children. as general allen's 30 states, successful transition will be characterized by afghan partners taking increasing responsibility for the planning and command and control of these night operations. i would appreciate our witnesses sharing with this committee the facts relative to the conduct of the night raids and the ongoing talks to reach an understanding on those operations. i understand that resolving this issue could help clear the way for concluding a strategic partnership agreement by the nato-chicago summit in may.

many challenges remain in afghanistan. it should not be understated. much will depend on countering the cross-border threat of insurgents fighting refuges and save havens. much is going to depend on the karzai government improving the delivery of services and economic development, taking on corruption and providing increased transparency and the concept of credible provincial and national elections. despite the challenges, our troops' morale remains high and they want to see that mission through to completion. they deserve our support and they have our support. senator mccain? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank our witnesses for appearing before us and for their continued service to our nation. i appreciate dr. miller,

lending his expertise, and i obviously want to recognize general allen, be the only witness before this committee his congressional testimony qualifies him as r and r of his day job. and the general allen beat the first to save what inspires him every day and long into the night is the selfless example set by the troops he leads. i know much of the recent news from afghanistan has been discouraging, and that has only increased the desire of a war- wary public to and our mission there. however, none of these -- this change is of vital u.s. national security interests that are at stake in afghanistan, where does it mean the war is lost. it is not. there is still a realistic path to success if the right decisions are made in the coming months.

painful lessons we learned on september 11, two dozen one, remains as true today as then -- what happens in afghanistan has a direct impact on our safety here at home. if we quit afghanistan again as we did in the 1990's, and abandoned the million athabaskans -- afghans, the consequences will be disastrous for us both. it does not have to be this way. our troops have made significant military progress on the ground in afghanistan. four years ago southern afghanistan was overrun by the taliban, and our coalition- backed the resources and strategy necessary to break the momentum. today the situation has reversed. our effort to build the afghan national security forces has been completely overhauled. this results in growing numbers of afghan unit capable of leading the fight.

if you afghan soldiers who turn their weapons on our troops should not obscure the larger fact that hundreds of thousands of afghans are fighting every day as our faithful allies in a common fight against al qaeda and the taliban, and these patriots are being wounded and killed in far greater numbers than our forces. this should give us hope that our common goal in afghanistan that can secure and government itself remains achievable over time. to sustain this process, it is critical that president obama resist the short-sighted calls for additional troop reductions, which are a guarantee of failure.

our forces are currently slated to drop down to 68,000 by september, a faster pace than commanders recommended, which is significantly increasing the risk for our mission. at a minimum, there should be a pause after september to assess the impact of the draw down. be better to maintain the 60,000 forces to the next fighting season, probably longer are. at the strategic level our efforts are undermined by the perception that the united states will abandon afghanistan once again. discreet incentives for the taliban to keep fighting, for the pakistan army to hedge its bets, and for afghan allies to make the section -- decisions based on fears of what a post- american future will bring trade we must reverse this dynamic, and the best way to do so is by including a strong agreement with afghanistan which would serve as a concrete basis for a long-term political, economic, and military relationship. just two weeks ago, one of the two major obstacles to this

agreement was resolved as the u.s. reaches an understanding on a timetable for handing over detention operations. this provides a reason for optimism a similar resolution can be found. in fact, this transition is occurring in practice with these issues resolved, the strategic agreement could provide a framework for an enduring u.s. military commitment to afghanistan beyond 2014, including joint operation facilities and long term support for the more than 350,000 afghan national security forces that are necessary to secure the country. this plan should include an enduring presence of u.s. special operations forces to continue counter-terrorism corp. with our afghan persons -- partners treat such an agreement would encourage our

allies to make long-term commitments. this is the right way to set the conditions under which our forces can draw down and hand to lead to the afghans. the sheet partnership would make clear to the taliban and that they cannot wait us out and win on the battlefield, posturing reconciliation on favorable terms to the afghan government and to us. it would demonstrate to pakistan's par make the continued support for the taliban is a losing battle that will only leave islamabad more isolated and less secure, and it would give afghan leaders the reassurance to fight corruption and government better. this agreement can change the entire narrative and the region from eminent international abandonment to and during international commitment. all of this is an achievable if the right decisions are made in the months ahead.

far from being an salvageable, or not worth the effort, this war is still hours to win. after all we have given all the precious lives we have lost with all the vital interests we have at stake, now is not the time to quit. it is a time to recommit ourselves to being successful. we owe nothing less to the tens of thousands of americans who are risking their lives every day for this mission and for us. i think you, mr. chairman, and i think the witnesses. >> a delighted to have you with us today, and you are our acting undersecretary of defense for policy, and we now call upon you. dr. miller? >> thank you. members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. i am pleased and honored to be here with our outstanding commander in afghanistan, general john allen.

united states' objectives remain to deny safe haven to al qaeda. this administration is committed to meeting these core objectives, and while we have faced and will face serious challenges, our strategy is succeeding. our efforts against al qaeda have been successful. although the job is not finished, there is no doubt that we have degraded out cutup's capacity. as a result of the search launched in 2009, which have broken and reversed the momentum. the security forces are increasingly capable and in the lead. our forces are performing extremely well as i saw firsthand in a trip to afghanistan, i took two weeks ago. where are well into a process of transitioning to leadership as we -- almost 50% of afghans live in areas that are in a

transition process. as a milestone in 2013 they will be in the lead for providing security across afghanistan. u.s. and coalition forces will be in a support role which will take the number of forums. this will include force is partnered with afghan units, and it will include the smaller footprint associated with forces in a train and advise and assist role. by the end of 2014, they will be responsibility for the security of their country. by that time u.s. and coalition forces will have moved to a much smaller presence. members of the committee, there is no doubt afghanistan war has been a tough fight. been a tough fight.