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 lessons 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 a long-term commitment extends to coalition partners. as the nato secretary general said, our commitment does not end with transition. we will finish the job to help create a secure afghanistan for our shared security. achieving peace will mean a form of reconciliation among afghans. it is not certain the reconciliation effort will bear fruit in the near term, but we need to try. any negotiated outcome must meet our unambiguous reconciliation. resurgence must renounce violence, but break all ties with al qaeda, and they must abide by the constitution of afghanistan. success depends on the support of afghanistan's neighbors, particularly pakistan pakistan

has legitimate interest that must be understood and addressed. pakistan also has responsibilities. most importantly, it need to ensure that militants and extremist groups cannot find safe haven in pakastani territory. pakistan has powerful incentives to do so. in 2011, there were death from i edie's. mr. chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. we started more than a decade ago to make sure the terrorist network that struck in new york, a washington, d.c., and the skies of pennsylvania would never again be able to use afghanistan as their sanctuary. based to our armed forces and civilian personnel, our strategy is working. while success in war is never guaranteed, we are on a path to meet our objective is to deny

safe-haven tell al qaeda and to deny the taliban's ability to disrupt the afghan government. i think the committee for your continued support in afghanistan and your strong support for the great men and women of the united states armed forces. >> thank you so much, dr. miller. general allan? >> chairman levin, senator mccain, a distinguished members of the committee, i take this opportunity to discuss our operations in afghanistan. it is a pleasure to be here with my friend, dr. jim miller, the acting undersecretary of defense for policy. 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 explain some of the policy issues with which we deal on a daily basis. let me express my sincere

gratitude to all of you for the support you provide to our men and women in uniform every day -- that they are well equipped, well-trained, and will lead is a great testament to this committee and the work of this congress. on behalf of those troops and on behalf of their families, thank you for all you have done for them. in the past eight months, i have walked the grounds of afghanistan with many of those troops along with my friend and partner, ambassador ryan crocker, and by nato compatriot , sir simon gas. i have met with the leaders of most of the other 49 nations serving alongside us. all through this i have been in close consultation with afghan civilian and military leadership, most of whom have been enmeshed in this country's conflicts from the soviet era to

the civil war to the darkness of the taliban to the 10 years of this conflict. enmeshed in this conflict for well over 30 years. i have gotten to know them all quite well. 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 by the taliban. second, as a coalition, the largest in recent history, we are well along in our progress to meet our 2010 lisbon summit commitments to transition to the afghan security forces by december 2014. third, our troops near the different they are making every day and the enemy feels that difference every day. to be sure, the last couple of months have been trying.

in the wake of the revelation that american troops have mishandled religious text, the car around protest, some of them violent, occurred in some of the regions around afghanistan. 32 afghans lost their lives in these riots and even more were hurt. since the first of january, 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 have been afghan security forces come -- security forces. now there appears to be the murder of 16 innocent afghan civilians at the hands of a u.s. service member. each of these events is heart wrenching and my thoughts and my prayer to go out to all those affected by this violence,

coalition and afghan alike. but i assure you the relationship between the coalition and the afghan security forces remains strong. two weeks ago, i was visiting with marines and local afghan commanders in the wake of the koran burning incident. a young marine said he and his unit were told about the demonstration by the afghan counterparts. the afghan troops told them "let us patrol outside the wire or a couple of days. you."e got this far or the marine continued -- our afghan brothers were trying to protect us. this one statement spoken by a young marine conveys the power of this brotherhood in arms forged in battle over the years. it speaks to the trust we have

built with the afghans. yet we know there is much hard and deadly work yet to be done, but the progress is real and, importantly, sustainable. we have degraded the insurgency. one afghan commander told me in the south in the latter part of to about 11, "this time around, the taliban was the await team." on top of that success as a result of our recent winter operations, which assists the degraded the taliban's ability to launch a major spring offensive of their own. they will find their former stronghold untenable and many of their foot soldiers absent or unwilling to join the fight. in kandahar back in december, 50 former talibs decided to formally reintegrate back into

afghan society. when asked what they lay 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 with greater frequency. while they were willing to fight foreigners, but were unwilling to fight their afghan brothers, especially those who fought back with courage and skill because of the training we have provided them. the training we provide them is critical to our mission. throughout history insurgencies has seldom been defeated by foreign forces. instead, they have been ultimately defeated by indigenous forces. our goals can only be achieved and then secured by afghan forces. transition, then, is the linchpin of our strategy, not merely the way out. during the last 12 months, the afghan security forces have expanded from 276,000 to more

than 330,000. they will reach their baffle surged strength ahead of the scheduled deadline in october. the expansion at the professional is asian of the afghan security forces allows us to recover the remaining 20,000 u.s. surge troops by this fall. it enables us to continue to pressure the taliban to reconcile and makes possible the security transition to the afghans in accordance with our lisbon summit agreement and on time. security conditions are very good in areas that have transitioned so far. later this year, afghan security forces are expected to assume the security lead fart two- thirds or possibly more of the afghan population. as the potential unifying influence in afghanistan, the

afghan forces are better than we thought they were to be. importantly, they are better than they thought they could be. as they moved to the fore, they are gaining more and more confidence and more and more capabilities. in the past five months, 89% of the total conventional operations were partnered with both conventional and afghan forces. 42% had afghans in the lead. over the next two years, coalition forces will remain combat ready, but increasingly focused on security force assistance. afghan leadership, then, is simply keep. i can tell you the afghans want to lead and they want the responsibility that comes with it. for the first time, our joint- coalition operational campaign plan from january 2012 to june

2013 was conceived, developed, and planned with afghans in the lead. they are truly emerging as the real defeat mechanism of this insurgency and increasingly as an emblem of national unity. this is the essential to the long-term security of afghanistan. but none of us a harbor illusions. we know that we face long-term challenges as well. we know that al qaeda and other extremist networks, the same networks that kill afghan and coalition troops every day, still operate with impunity across the border in pakistan. we know that the taliban and remains resilient and determined. many of them will try to regain their lost ground this spring through assassination, intimidation, high-profile attacks, and the use of ieds. we know it iran feels the flames

of violence. we know that corruption still robs afghan citizens of faith in their government and the poor governance itself often advances insurgent messages. the campaign has been long and difficult. it has been ugly. there have been setbacks and we are experiencing them now. there will be more setbacks ahead. i wish i could tell you that this war was simple, progress could be easily measured -- but that is not the way of counter insurgency. they are fraught with successes and setbacks, which can exist in the same space at the same time, but each must be seen in the larger context of the overall campaign. i believe that campaign is on track. we are making a difference. i know this and our troops move this. i would like to take just another moment of your time

today, mr. chairman, distinguished members, to end where i began this morning, with our troops and the thousands and thousands of american and coalition partners that are bearing the weight of this conflict and to remember that there will be a number that will never return to their families. i asked you to please know that they are central to my every decision and to every word i speak before this committee. one of them, a young marine who was laid to rest last tuesday in 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 to this cause for which we fight. sergeant william stacey prepared a letter for his family to be read again the event of his death. in it, he said, "there will be a child because men left the

security they enjoyed in their home country to come to his. this child will learn in new schools that have been built. he will walk the streets not worried about whether or not henchman will come and kidnapped him. he will grow into a fine man who will pursue every opportunity his heart will desire. he will have the gift of freedom, which i have enjoyed for so long. if my life by as the safety of a child who will one day change the world, then i know it was all worth it." mr. chairman, i can only add that i am confident that americans are safer today because of the sacrifices of the magnificent men and women in uniform represented in this letter by sergeant stacey. i am confident we will prevail in this endeavor. i want to thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you today.

for the extraordinary support of this committee -- support you provide every day to the men and women in our armed forces, who i am privileged and honored to lead. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, general allan, for your powerful, you're clear, your moving statements. thank you for reading sergeant stacey's letter to us. it has the kind of powerful effect and immediate effect i wish every american could be privileged to hear. minute round. the vote is that 12:30. we should be able to get a first round for everybody. general, we will start with you. did you support the president's decision to draw down the 33,000

u.s. surge of force by the end of this summer and do you still support that decision? >> i was on record in doing so before and i do, still. >> is that reduction on pace? are we on track to withdraw the remaining 23,000 troops of that 33,000 search forced by the end of the summer? >> i will make the final decision shortly and submit my plan up the chain of command to the chairman and the secretary of defense, but i believe we will be on track to recover those surge of forces. >> you recently said, general, you intend to wait until after the withdrawal of the surge of forces to evaluate the situation on the ground in afghanistan and then sometime before the end of 2012, you would make your recommendations relevant to the pace of further reductions.

can i ask you whether or not that was your idea to wait until after the removal of the 33,000 surge forces before you made that recommendation? >> that was a result of a conversation with the chain of command. >> do you think it was a wise idea? >> i take it is the best way ultimately to identify the state of the insurgency, the state of the full isaf force, but also to evaluate the requirements. >> is that timetable -- does that timetable mean it would be sometime in the last three months of this year you would make that recommendation? >> i believe so, sir. >> president obama, president

karzai in their coordinated statement last week's committed -- last week committed themselves to the 2014 date when afghan security forces would have full responsibility for security throughout afghanistan and then the 2013 update when the -- 2013 day when the lead for combat operations would shift to afghan forces with u.s. forces in support. is the 2013 time frame for transitioning the lead our combat operations -- is that consistent with the lisbon plan for completing the transition for afghans having full responsibility for security throughout afghanistan?

>> mr. chairman, the lisbon summit in vision that there would be several tranches of the geography of afghanistan that would transition over time. we determined there would be five. the first is in transition now. the second has just begun. we are deliberating on the third. we anticipate the fifth and final transition will be announced by president karzai probably in the summer of 2013 with implementation to begin some point they're after. generally it 30-35 days thereafter. technically, per the lisbon summit, when the fifth transition ultimately begins to implementation, afghan national security forces are in the league for security across the country. that is a process that will continue -- that at leadership

assisted in differing ways based on the geography and the enemy threat out to the end of 2013. i hope that answers your question. >> 2013 -- being in the league is consistent with the 2014 date for having full responsibility. but it is, chairman. >> according to a wall street journal at art -- wall street journal article, the u.s. is reducing the size of the afghan security forces from the 252,000 this year to 230,000 after 2013 partly to reduce the cost of sustaining the afghan forces. the head of our training mission in afghanistan is cited as saying the proposal is based on what the international community will provide financially. as i said in my opening

comments, i believe it is cost- effective to sustain a larger afghan security force when up compared -- when compared to costs. that is cost in dollars and lies. given the fact that you and our military leaders agree, 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 i wholeheartedly believed in right from the beginning. your eloquent station about transition been the linchpin of our strategy, not merely the way out, is a very strong way of stating that. but given the fact that transition to a strong afghan security force is the key to success for this mission, why

would it -- why does it make sense to talk about reducing the size of the afghan army by a third? you protest updated in these deliberations and you conclude that we should see the reduction of the afghan force by one- third? >> chairman, of course of the number 352 was always intended to be a temporary number. the recovery of that surge force would occur sometime in the future. the study which was undertaken was to look out to the year 2017 and look at the various potential intelligence realities that the afghan national security forces could face a potentially. that series of studies created a number of different force

structures, which we believe it had variant levels of capabilities based on the most like the potential enemy scenario. of those scenarios, the one which we thought was sufficient in capability, which was the most important initial finding, was one that had at the correct balance of both afghan national police, an moi presence a, and another presence. we are continuing to evaluate our options, all the way from the current force, the 352 force, which will continue to exist for several years once we have fielded it, to a force smaller than 230, which probably does not have the right combination of capabilities. we thought the to a hundred 30 force, which is a target number,

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 forced below the 350,000? >> the decision ultimately was done from both the u.s. side and in consultation. >> we have not decided if it needs to be reduced from the 350,000? >> it is not a decision solely for the united states. >> we decided it is our position it should be reduced? >> it is our position that ultimately the courts should be reduced below 350,000. >> we have not decided what level? >> not to a specific number. >> i hope that would not be dependent upon the financial issues. >> that is a very important point. we will continue to monitor the quality metrics of the ansf.

those quality mattress will also be accompanied by a consistent evaluation of the security environment as well. that's security and garment will be ultimately the key indicator of whether that drawdown should occur. it will be conditions-based. i submit those metrics every six months. starting with the next set of metrics, we will begin the process of evaluating what we think the scenario will be in 2014 period.to the th 1 we will pick a number. >> conditions indicate that three of the 50,000 at the right number, that is what you recommend? >> yes, sir. at this juncture based on studies, based on the intelligence scenarios, 231,000-

236,000 looks like about the right number. >> senator mccain? >> i would be interested in seeing those studies that bring you down to 231,000. that would contradict every study that has been done in the past. past studies were flawed and inaccurate or the present study is flawed and inaccurate. it also -- there is a scenario that concerns many of us -- the news exit current -- consumed by at the draw down. we do not hear any more commitments to victory or success. it should not surprise you or anybody, general, when president karzai exhibits some of the

behavior that he does that the -- that he does. that the taliban and feel they can wait us out. that the pakastanis continue to support the haqqani network and continue to hedge their bets. all you hear about is which all and the pace of withdrawal. you know what is on the first -- front page of the new york times. not achieving goals and drawing down, but how rapidly we can drop down. i am also interested, the fact that you cannot make a decision on the force levels in the year 2013 until the end of 2012 -- is that what you are telling this committee? >> 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 of 68k plust 40,000 isaf forces can handle what i will be -- what i think will be the operational requirement of 2013. >> you have no idea what it will be in 2013? >> it is my opinion at this particular juncture. my opinion is we will need significant combat power in 2013. >> 68,000? >> 68,000 is a good number. i of the president some analysis on that. >> in response to the chairman's question about if you supported the past reductions in forces -- you supported those decisions. you also said it would increase the risk.

>> i did, sir. >> does it surprise you when president karzai starts looking at a situation where the united states leased a neighborhood -- does it surprise you when the isi continues their support of the taliban and killing americans -- we are sounding an uncertain trumpet? >> there may be an uncertain trumpet out there. much of the coverage has not been helpful for this process, but i am it very clear that i believe we will be successful. >> i do, too, militarily. the strategic partnership agreement is close to being concluded? >> we have not begun the final negotiation for the strategic partnership agreement yet. we think it is closed. >> brought the it. -- thank you.

i would like to thank the administration for their efforts in this, but i would also like to thank my two colleagues, senator lieberman and senator gramm, and they're consistent efforts to get this done. there is no american that knows more about this and senator 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. 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. >> yes, i do. 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. it is a critical milestone. >> you were encouraged by recent progress? >> if yes, understanding the tumultuous last couple of months. i'm very encouraged by recent progress. i was encouraged by the progress

i saw on the ground when i was there two weeks ago. >> 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 isi 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. there have been a number of with president karzai and his government.

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? -- in the isi relationship with the taliban or haqqani network? >> 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 isaf for that sacrifice. >> 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. thank you also for -->> 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. >> thank you, sir. >> 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 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 -- just as we are -- 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? >> their operating 24 hours a day. night operations are particularly valuable.

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 rescindins of populations? -- receptiveness of the afghan i security forces and the population? >> 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. -- green 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.

-- that might be put under the category of governance. we could have tactical success on the ground. -- but if the governance has failed, we will not be successful. most experts suggest that will not be successful. are you exploring ways that without constitutional changes, afghanis can

decentralize? that may be one way to get more effective governance? >> 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 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 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 t 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. lacher we had about 2200 night operations and about 200 of them we did not fire eight shots. -- a shot. 50's arm of them we got the targeted individual.

83% roughly of the night operations we that either the primary target foreign associates. -- or an associate. 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 afghanization of night operations.

>> they seem to only highlight 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 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. they are retaining the individuals that had been previously released to them. 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 administration 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 you consider the rate of recidivism? we know it is about 25%. 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. we are doing that with eyes wide open and understanding the -- 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 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. -- senator levin had to go to the floor. 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 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? 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. 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. -- signicant 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? >> let me pull up a number. my recollection is that the request was a little over 11 billion. we requested about 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. a're trying to control 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 following the koran, is there a 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 -- any spectrum of 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. -- has to listen very carefully. 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. >> he said afghanistan will meet 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 -- series of very odd 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? in our relationship with afg hanistan? >> 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. the burning of religious materials, including the koran.

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" 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. in frustration and in anger. on behalf of our forces, and the population of the 50 states, i reject that term. this magnificent churches are -- troops 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. -- dedication 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. -- might be uttered. >> 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. that is a signal of his leadership. we need to understand that 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 -- a lot of 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. by late 2014, about 13 years after 9/11. we know the reality here. 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 -- that it was actually the af ghanis 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. >> thank you for that.

>> 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 formal 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. ncis. 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. general,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 -- troops in afghanistan. this happened so frequently that it is known by the term force attacks. "green on blue attacks." how many have died as a result and how many attacks are still currently under investigation? >> 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. interesteveryone's 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 -- in personal contact 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 you 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 fielded -- it to continue in force past 2014. it will be based on quality metrics come at the assessments of the enemy situation comedy operation environment and so on. it to continue for just a full year. this'll be a force that will be primarily capable of conducting counterinsurgency capabilities. this will be focused on continuing to deal with it. as comments that have been made implied, one of the challenges

you'll continue to face is the uncertain threat across the border. we would expect the force 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 allen 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 we have envisioned across the 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 icef forces, it is done by the nato training mission, but also done by the operational 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, 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-2013 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 -- noted 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? >> absolutely, the ability to terminate a contract on the spot for misconduct is very helpful. >> and we also address some of the issues with the guardsmen, and getting the amendment ought to do that. -- out 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 audits that you and your commander are subjected to. is that better than it 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. not avoiding the audits, but take all of the men and women who are serving, putting them

in offices, 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. 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 running is the clearest deterrent from the taliban potentially exporting 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 you see they are communicating -- i forget if it was by a bell 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 -- i know that you know this -- that 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 arehe i.e.d.'s that we managing 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 they have, as we see 9000 of our troops there, and they're very frustrated with this 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, 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- i.e.d. 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 i.e.d.'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 vegetables 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 be 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 -- mineral extraction, for example, but a key part is to look at this from the bottom

up, the grassroots 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. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, dr. miller and general allen. general, i want to thank you for your powerful testimony,

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 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 outcome of this.

/ñ??????????????ñ?

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 legislative 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 house 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 note that he talks about the highway bill, the infrastructure bill that the -- that is pending. obviously we had expected to consider that bill on the house 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 certainty 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 senate has 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. representative tim bishop of new york has introduced the senate bill which has overwhelming support in the 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 have 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 would be consistent with every 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 two 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 difficult economic times. we have never faced the kind of problems that we face today as a country from a fiscal standpoint. and unfortunately 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. but 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 piece 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. i've been asking you for a number of weeks if it was going to come to the 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 floor. 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 we 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 comment or not. mr. cantor: 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 you've 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 guarantee that 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 can sustain health care for seenos -- seniors, 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 offered either by the minority ranking member of the committee and/or others as has historically been the case? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, yes, we expect 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 gentleman 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 the 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 substitutes 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 that he expected to be pursued. he was not referring to the action of the budget committee, but he was referring to the agreement on 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 the 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 this 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 another number and we agree on a number and then 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 of the minds as the contract requires. very frankly, nobody on our side and frankly i 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 agreement. a lot of our people voted on that to make sure, a, we didn't go into 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 with 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 performance 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 discussion given the senate is not going to pass a budget.

i remind the gentleman again, it takes two houses to go and reconcile a 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 everything 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. >> again a few moments, the

global fight against hiv/aids. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke the crisis. part of a lecture series at george washington university. on this morning's washington journal, oklahoma congressman tom cole, a member of the appropriations and budget committee talked about the house gop 2013 budget proposal. former tv talk-show host phil donahue discusses his film. bradley herring looks at how many americans are without health insurance. washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> several live events to tell you about.

the heritage foundation held a discussion of the administration's decision not to fund a training program for army flight crew members. that is on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span3, cases challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. that event at the cato institute is live at 10:45 a.m. eastern. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. here the oral arguments in their entirety, as the core releases audio around 2:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c- span3 and c-span radio. coverage starts monday morning live on c-span with washington journal and continues through the day.

then, oral arguments on c-span3. >> the head of the centers for disease control and prevention said hiv/aids is the most significant disease facing the world, but there have been declines in mortality and and and rates. this is about half an hour. [applause] >> i want to thank all of the non-governmental organizations and individual advocates who have helped us get to where we are today in hiv. we can take a moment to look

back and see how far we have come. i am honored to be here and delighted to share some data on the hiv epidemic and where it sits in global health, policy, and the u.s. health care system. it is possible, i think, to forget just how bad the hiv epidemic has been. hiv has already killed in this country as many people as have died in all wars since the civil war. hiv continues to be -- was a much worse blight on countries that were already struggling with basic health issues. and yet we have remarkable hope and progress to celebrate as well. when i think of that, i remember a woman i met in nigeria a couple of years ago who was carrying twins.

she said to me, i am hiv positive, but i am on treatment and i feel great. my twins are hiv negative. they are going to grow up without aids because of the american people. please go back and tell people how much we appreciate the support because it is our allies and the lives of our children. we have come a long way, but in terms of our response to the epidemic -- not the epidemiology, but our response to the epidemic -- 2012 is a tipping point. i will point to three huge trends in this area. first that we are seeing increasing coverage and decrease in unit costs. we are able to treat more people are the same amount of money. second, there is increasing recognition of global shared

responsibility and accountability. that is an issue that the world have to take responsibility for, not only the u.s., not only the countries in which the epidemic is hitting hardest, but countries throughout the world can do more to prevent hiv. third, new evidence that we can make a huge difference that treatment is prevention. for so many years we had this fight -- treatment or prevention. now we know that treatment is prevention. it is a critical part mother-to-child can be scaled up and have populations reached an impact. we have -- we know that infection rates and death can be driven down. this is crucially important. i think it forms a response. i want to take a moment to describe to you the work cdc

does all over the world. we are fortunate to have a fantastic staff in atlanta and around the world. we have nearly 2000 people working around the world. we have another 10,000 people plus in atlanta who can backstop these individuals in any area where we need expertise. we recognize that there are huge challenges. over the past year i have had the privilege of visiting with our staff and seeing many of the programs. where we are able to -- respond to a cholera epidemic. we have prevented more than 9000 deaths from cholera. much more need to be done. we are lacking in resources to improve water and sanitation the way all of us would want to have

happen, but we have made tremendous progress. i just at returned from nigeria. there are an estimated 100 million cases of malaria each year and 300,000 deaths from malaria each year. mother to child transmission is not scaling up as well as we would like. polio is continuing to be a major problem. there are new commitments from the government of nigeria. i am optimistic we will see significant progress there. in kenya we see terrific examples of a skeleton. more than two-thirds of all patients in kenya are now being tested for hiv and if found positive, being put on treatment. in just a couple of years, 8 rapid scalloped. -- a rapid scaled up.

it shows there can be effective upscaling. in russia where we work on immunization and vaccination issues. in china where we have felt the country opened up and look at things like influenza and become a global collaborating center where the post on the internet every single week the strains of flu they are finding with laboratories we helped them develop with their own resources so the whole world benefits from that information. in brazil where we helped the country scale up physical activity in an effort i think is unparalleled in the world. they are going to spend $700 million to see whether it is possible to get people moving on a mast bases. in vietnam where we have helped support development of public health infrastructure and try to reverse or stop drug resistant

malaria. we have helped them in areas like motorcycle helmets where they have seen a dramatic reduction in injuries and influenza where they remain at high risk. in india where we have been able to work with the world health organization and the government of india to make remarkable progress on polio. india has gone 14 months without a case of polio. a result of enormous social activism, but enormous accountability, and a $1 billion investment by the government of india for polio eradication. but hiv remains the leading global cause -- the leading global challenge in terms of infectious diseases. i will give you a sense of the scope of our activity. we have global disease detection

activity around the world. we have immunization -- making sure countries have effective immunization policies and programs. we are tracking the spread of the flu so we can have an early warning system and note -- and prepare what could be a terrible epidemic. providing technical assistance with the ministers of health and with governments and programs to ensure programs are documented. our field epidemiology programs have turned out more than 2500 epidemiologists in recent years. they are doing important work in their old -- in their own countries to design programs, employment programs, and see whether those programs are working. we work with the department of

defense in strategic areas. of course, with the global aids program. we are seeing signs of progress. hiv remains the biggest infectious disease challenge of the world. there have been 65 million hiv infections and 30 million deaths since this epidemic started. in 2011, there were 2.7 million deaths, one point -- 2.7 million new infections and 1.8 million deaths. the number of people being infected continues to grow. the graph shows a 20% reduction in hiv incidence and a slightly larger reduction, about 27% reduction, in sub-saharan africa.

partnerships are absolutely inessential and learning lessons from all around the world and applying them wherever they can be applied is crucially important. h.i.v.-related mortality is also declining. one of the things we have been taught is that public health is at its best when we see and help others seat at the faces and the lives behind the numbers. these numbers are coming down, but they are still shockingly high. at the peak of the aids epidemic in africa, hiv accounted for two-thirds of all adult death. can you imagine what that would be like in our own village, our own community? there are communities in which the only business that was increasing was the funeral business. there were communities in which

the hope that there could be progress was dissipating. the number of health care workers was declining because of hiv affecting their own lives. the possibility for progress seemed remote. we now have the ability to make it big change and significant progress. the u.s. government has called for -- and virtually no child will be born with hiv infection, adults living with hiv do not progressed to aids, that there is a rapid decline in hiv incidence. combination prevention can turn the tide of the hiv epidemic just as a combination antiretrovirals can turn the tide on the infection in an

individual. it prevents mother to child transmission, voluntary medical male circumcision, and correct and consistent condom use. what we are seeing in this call for an aids-free generation is the translation policy into action. we are hoping for progress towards and hiv vaccine, but we do not have to wait. president obama said on world aids day -- an ambitious, but achievable goal in challenge to all of us. what we see is a goal to reduce mother to child transmission by 90%.

reducing maternal mortality by at least half. and -- three numbers that we need to keep front and center in everything we do, 6 million on treatment, $1.50 million to prevent mother to child transmission, and $4.70 million voluntary male circumcision. those numbers are enormously ambitious. we have 21 months to achieve them. i am confident that working together we can. at home we have for the first time the national hiv/aids strategy for this country with a focus on reducing new infections, increasing access to occur and improving health outcomes for people living with hiv, reducing hiv related disparities and health inequalities, and achieving a more coordinated response to the

hiv epidemic. let's not mistake -- we have a significant challenges in this country. 1.2 million people are living with hiv approximately. one in five -- 200,000 people do not know they have hiv. another 450,000 or so know they have hiv but they are not on effective treatment. we are seeing an increase in hiv incidence among young men who have sex with men and african- american communities. we see that more than 60% of new infections occur with men who have sex with men. when we look at the concept of accountability, only 28% of all americans living with hiv -- that means their own health is at risk and their partners are at risk. we have a long way to go, but we know the significance.

san francisco has scaled up prevention and they are seeing significant reductions in incidence of hiv. at cdc, we are taking a new approach to our prevention work. we are saying let's make sure in this country for our prevention dollars that we are spending our resources in places that need it most, for the programs that work the best, for the population at highest risk. we will shift our funding. we will determine our funding based on the number of people living with hiv and support innovation in health departments and communities and make sure that three-quarters of all resources we send out go far or four key activities.

we will not be able to effectively manage the epidemic and help people be healthy on less -- unless we systematically track these numbers. in this country, we have seen progress. 11 million more americans know the status. three-quarters of though our high risk. we have seen 90% decreases in mother-to-child transmission and in blood-borne transmission. those same levels of the effectiveness can be seen globally and what we hope to know in the next few years is whether scaling up treatment and prevention can reach that kind of impact on sexual transmission

of hiv. not only is it saving lives, but it can save money as well. we know from a broad variety of public health initiatives it can drive down health care costs. immunization saves $3 for every $1 we spend and $10 for society. a single patient living with hiv has a lifetime cost of about $400,000. if we can drive down infections and reduced the number of people who become infected in the future, we can improve the cost curve for caring for hiv. effective prevention and intervention is increasingly understood. we know that pmtct can reduce transmission. this is all on the global scale. we know that treatment as

prevention has been documented to reduce transmission by 96%. this is remarkable evidence of progress. we now know that if you are on treatment, not only do you live longer and healthier, but you will be 96% less likely to spread hiv to others. that is a game changer in our understanding of how the epidemic works and how to manage the epidemic. how to control it and prevent it. we are still at only 47% coverage. male circumcision is at least 60% effective in reducing the male-to-male transmission of hiv. our coverage is less than 5% globally, but we have seen that it can be scaled up. kenya, for example, has held up remarkably. 400,000 voluntary male

circumcision. they will have an enormous benefit from that effort in fewer transmissions, fewer illnesses, or productivity in future years. hiv vaccines -- we are still a long wait rarely need to be, but we need to continue to work on it. it would be without a doubt an enormous contribution. we need to try to continue to understand better. this is the data on the effectiveness of circumcision. as time went on, it did not go down, it actually went up in terms of its level of effectiveness. 73% effectiveness over a longer time. we could have potential progress by scaling up these interventions. what we are able to do is increase our partnering to

ensure that efficacy increases and sustainability increases. we have seen systems established and when systems are established, the unit cost fall dramatically. drug costs are falling, but they have been to scale. we have transferred services to local partners. now cdc is providing most of our services through local partners, ministries of health, and others. we have helped to start a teen- based care, a very important initiative and a very important tool. make sure that every member of the health care team is used to its fullest potential. that will allow us to do better care for lower-cost and ensure that we have people in the health care system that can support communities.

we are also seeing south africa and other countries take on the greatest portion of the financial burden of treatment. that need to continue. this is a global-shared responsibility. the u.s. has done an enormous amount and are committed to continuing to do an enormous amount and more going forward, but other countries, countries that are effected by it -- affected by the epidemic as well as a donor countries also need to do more. this slide shows a model of different scenarios of what may happen in swaziland as we scale of different interventions. the number of new infections per 100-person years. the current model based on the most effective model that we have is there are about 2.5 for

every one person per year. if we do nothing, that will increase. if we expand medical circumcision to, that will fall if we do not do either, it will increase, but if we look at expandable treatment and circumcision, we can see substantial reductions from 2.5 to 1.5. if we treat at lower levels, we can see the levels going down all the way below 1. we think it is possible to drive down influx of hiv with combination prevention. time will tell how effectively that can be done in the field and what the impact will be, but all of our best estimates and models to date tell us an

interesting suggestion is evidence indicates we have a potential for significant progress. at cdc, we are delighted to be part of the effort to make that progress. we do a lot. we develop -- there are parallels between what we do in this country and what we do globally to support public health. we provide technical guidance, technical assistance, as well as direct funding. we have technical experts in more than 75 countries working on hiv and a variety of other issues. we have close partnerships with the ministries of health and local organizations. we work in countries to apply epidemiology. we held countries look at and act on their own information. the program i told you about earlier has populated ministries

of health as well as non- governmental organizations committed to progress throughout the world. they can help set up systems, water systems, implement systems, and make sure those systems can continue for many years to come. we have a lot of host-country staff whose skills we rely on and you can interact with local organizations. we have cooperative agreements with 63 ministries of health developed carefully over many years with safeguards and technical assistance so we can gradually and steadily improve the capacity of countries to respond to the hiv and other health threats. we helped to establish the african laboratories.

we improved laboratory networks and quality. we improved health security by helping to build institutions like cdc which can work as sentinels for health at the leading edge of response in epidemics and help test. countries throughout the world are building programs like cdc. most recently, india created its own cbc and countries in africa are doing the same. we are all connected by the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. the risk anywhere is potentially a risk everywhere. the spread of drug-resistant takes only days or weeks to spread from one country to another. it can be very costly. we are all looking forward to the international aids

conference in july in this city. i think it will be exciting. it is a welcome return for the u.s. and i know that many in the audience worked hard to reverse the travel ban on hiv. seagate -- cdc was proud to play a big role in the policy change. we are delighted to be welcome back to that conference after a long pause. what a world of difference two decades make. i trained as an internist in a substance abuse position in the mid-'80s. -- mid-1980's. my experience was taking care of hundreds of people dying of aids. i could do virtually nothing. when i left the u.s. to go to india for five years in october of 1996, it was at the point

where combination treatments were coming into widespread acceptance. i had two friends who were dying from aids. i figured i would never see them again. both of them are working full time today. two decades makes an enormous difference. i think we can expect progress at the international aids conference. we need to recognize that if it were not for the advocacy in hiv, when would not be where we are today, not just in hiv, but other diseases. the hiv advocacy committee shows the way for people suffering from a wide variety of health conditions to demand better treatment, to demand faster results, to demand access to the latest information. we celebrate the progress and celebrate the ability to respond

to the needs of a community with an entire partnership of commitment. we have the national hiv/aids strategy in the u.s. despite the pressure the government is under, we have increased our spending each budget year. we celebrate the commitment to a new -- to an aids-free generation. we will be looking to the scallop of treatment. we will be looking forward to the reauthorization of programs. we will be looking at new technology. we will be looking at new ways to do circumcision that are bloodless, and simple. we will be looking at pre exposure prophylactics and the

impact of treatment on death rates. i think there are very exciting possibilities. we know that treatment works as prevention from one individual to another. we are going to focus as treatment as prevention and document the impact of that and optimize its a we can do it as effectively as possible. we are also looking at the impact of hiv programs on systems. not only have we achieved the target with steadily declining costs, but have done that and at the same time strengthen systems -- delivery systems, community efforts to improve health. that is something to be celebrated and built on it moving forward. combination prevention is

something that would have been virtually unimaginable at 10 years ago. no one entity can do this alone. i think working together as we can achieve a society in which incidence of infections are rare, prevention from hiv to aids is rare, hiv treatment is effective and accountable, helping people live long, productive, healthy lives, an incidence of hiv is falling rapidly. that is the world we all need to continue fighting for. thank you all for what you do all the time to make that a reality. thank you very much. [applause] >> in a few moments, ben bernanke on how the fed handles the crisis. part of a series at george washington university. washington journal is live at

7:00 eastern. our guests include former tv talk-show host phil donahue. we will also have segments of the proposed gop budget and uninsured americans. >> several life events to tell you about this morning. the heritage foundation host at a discussion of the administration's decision not to fund a training program for army air lines flight crew members. that is on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span3, a form on next week's supreme court oral arguments challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. that event at the cato institute is live at 10:45 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend on the presidency on american history tv -- >> think of the fdr memorial. it was 3 + design.

i think that we should not be afraid of looking at this issue because we are building something for the century and we want to get it right. >> with the eisenhower memorial opposed by the family, a house subcommittee discussed the planned memorial for or 34 of precedent. what sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> ben bernanke all what led to the recent financial collapse. this is one of the series of lectures he is giving this month at george washington university. ben bernanke told students at the fed interest rate policies did not contribute to the housing bubble. this is one hour 15 minutes.

>> let's get started. i would like to welcome our students back as well as the fact of it. it is anything like tuesday, this will be a great session. chairman bernanke. >> thanks very much. you came back. [laughter] that is good news. this is the second of four lectures of the financial crisis. >> it is very helpful to try to put the recent crisis and the ongoing recovery in to an historical context. last time we talked about the origins of central banking going back to the bank of england and the debates of the 19th century. the origins of the federal reserve and the federal reserve's first great challenge which was the great depression.

we drew some lessons from the 1930's that will be relevant as we discuss more recent events. today i will pick up the history after world war ii, talking about important episodes after the war, but i will be getting in today to the beginnings of the crisis. for the latter part of today's lecture, and all next week, it will be about the crisis. now, as we go along i want to make sure you keep your eye on the ball thematically speaking. the two basic ideas, the two basic missions of the central bank are first, macro economic stability, maintaining stable growth, keeping inflation low and stable, and of course, as you know, the principal policy

tools for maintaining macroeconomics stability is monetary policy. in normal times the fed or central banks will use the open market operations, purchases and sales of securities, and markets to move interest rates up or down, and try to create a more stable macroeconomic environment. that is an important part of any central bank's mission. the other part of its mission is financial stability. central banks are focused on trying to ensure that the financial system is functioning properly, and they want to prevent if possible, and if not, to mitigate the effects of a financial crisis or financial panic. we talked about the lender of last resort function, the notion that in a financial panic the central bank can follow its role of lending freely against good collateral at penalty

rates, and providing short-term credit to financial institutions, a central bank can offset the effects of a run or a panic and the accompanying damage to the financial system and the economy. let's move ahead and talk about the history. we left off in the world war ii, which ended the depression which led to a sharp drop in unemployment as people were put to work building munitions and serving the home front. when of the aspects of wars is how wars finance, and normally they are substantial by borrowing. this is not a surprise. u.s. national debt was built up quite substantially during world war ii debate for the war, and the fed in cooperation with the treasury used its ability to manage interest-rate to keep interest rates low so as to make it cheaper for the government to finance world war

ii. that was the role of the fed during the war. after the war ended, the debt was still there. but government was still worried about paying the interest on the national debt, which was a very high level. there was pressure on to the fed to keep interest rates low even after the war, but there was a drawback to that which is if you keep interest rates low even if an economy is recovering you are risking overheating the economy. you are risking inflation. by 1951, the fed was concerned about inflation and prospects in the united states, and after a series of negotiations, the treasury agreed to end the arrangement and let the fed set interest rates independently as needed to achieve economic stability.

that agreement was called the fete treasury accord of 1915, and it was important because it was the first clear acknowledgment by the government that the federal reserve should be allowed to operate on an independent basis. today around the world there is a strong consensus that central banks that operate independently will deliver better results than those dominated by the government. a central bank which is independent can ignore short- term political pressures, for example, to pump up the economy before an election, and in doing so he can take a much longer perspective and get better results. the evidence for this is quite strong, and as a result, major central banks around the world are typically independent which means they make their decisions in respect of a short-term political pressures.

in the 1950's and 1960's, the primary concern of the fed was macroeconomics stability. you'd see a picture of the chairman their, from 1951 to 1970, 19 years. he was the leader of the fed. chairman greenspan's term ended at 18 years 6 months, and he unfortunately did not break the record. in that case we have had two chairmen who account between them more than 37 years of leadership at the fed during the postwar period. monetary policy during the 1950's and early 1960's was simple. the economy was growing, as after the worst, the u.s. economy was dominant. the fears about renewed depression had not come true. as a result, a lot of grit was occurring.

what the fed tried to do was follow was a lien against the wind monetary policy which meant that when the economy was growing quickly the fed tightens to try to restrain overheating. when the economy is growing more slowly, the fed lowers interest rates, crete's expansionary stimulus in order to avoid a recession. william martin very attentive to the risk of inflation. you see a quotation there from him. "inflation is a thief in the night." he tried to keep inflation and growth stable, and indeed, despite the fact that the 1950's were more tumultuous than you might think, their work after all a serious war in korea, a couple of recessions during that decade. it was basically productive and

prosperous decade as the economy went back to civilian operations after the end of world war ii. however, as usual things were not to remain completely trouble-free. starting in the mid 1960's, for a variety of reasons, monetary policy became too easy. after a period of time, and after given the fed did not change its stance, this easing monetary policy led to a surge in inflation and inflation expectations. you see a graph of inflation, from 1960 to 1964, inflation averaged over 1% a year. it picked up during the vietnam period. even higher in the early 1970's. by the end of the 1970's, the inflation rate peaked at 13%. inflation was a growing problem

started in the mid 1960's and into that 1970's. an important question, why was monetary policy so easy as to allow inflation become a problem in the 1970's? one issue was a technical issue, which was that monetary policy makers became too optimistic about how hot the economy could run without generating inflation pressures. by keeping inflation and little but hire you would be able to get that better performance, the higher employment level, and in the prosperity of the early 1960's, the fed began to follow that approach. there was quite a subtle issue here, which was economic theory and practice in the 1950's and

early 1960's suggested there was a permanent tradeoff between inflation and employment, the notion being if we could keep inflation a little bit above normal we could get permanent increases in employment, permanent reductions in unemployment, and that was the view taken by many economists during that time. it was milton friedman who wrote in the mid 1960's that this has got to cause trouble, and he argued that increases in inflation may give you a bump in employment, caused an opponent to fall for a while, but that is what to be transitory effect. the analogy might be to a candy bar. hideki candy bar in the short run, it gives you a burst of energy, but after a while it just makes you fat. monetary policy was analogous to that, and friedman argument, and he turned out to be quite

prescience, that it tends to creep out of plumb it too low we were ending up increasing inflation. there are debates today about whether or not there were political pressures put on the fed. this was a period of government deficits, and the government was trying to deal with vietnam, the great society, and that may have influenced the fed's behavior. now, this said, you cannot obviously sustain inflation without monetary policy being too easy. another famous quotation, nation is always a monetary phenomenon. there were a bunch of exacerbating factors that made it difficult to offset the increase in inflation. there were a number of shocks

to prices of oil and food. a striking example was in 1973, october, the war in the middle east broke out. in retaliation to a u.s. support of israel, opec, the organization of petroleum exporting countries, found some cartel power, put an embargo on oil exports, and in the in a short period of time, in the early 1970's, the price of oil almost quadrupled. very sharp increases of will prices and gas prices. people were lining up at gas stations to make sure their gas tanks were full. there is a system of even-odd rationing. if your license plate was even, he could only goes on tuesdays and thursdays.

it was a serious issue and there was a lot of unhappiness about gas prices than as there is of course today as well. fiscal policy i also mentioned. fiscal policy was overall to use during the late 1960's and early 1970 prostrate the vietnam war and other programs increase government spending and increase deficits which put additional pressure on the capacity of the economy. another element that -- wage- price controls. when inflation got up to 5%, president nixon introduced wage price controls, a series of laws which forbade firms from raising their prices. there were exceptions and there were all kinds of boards to try to find exceptions. it was an unsuccessful policy. on the one hand, prices are at

it service stat of an economy. putting controls on wages and prices meant there were shortages and all kinds of other problems. in addition, as milton friedman put it, it was like dealing with an over heating furnace by breaking the thermostat. the fundamental problem was the fact that there was too much demand, driving up prices, and simply, passing a law which said people could not raise prices does not address the problem of excessive demand. the controls kept inflation artificially low for a couple of years, made it harder for the fed to figure out what was gone on, and when they collapsed because they were creating so many problems in the economy, inflation surged like a spring was released at the end of the wage-price controls.

there were a lot of reasons supporting the increase in inflation. here's a picture of arthur burns, the chairman of the fed in the 1970's and the quote is, in a rapidly changing world, the opportunities to making mistakes are legion, which are certainly true. i think one way to think about this whole episode is that after world war two, and the end and the conquest of the depression and prosperity that they saw, economists and policymakers became a little bit too confident about their ability to keep the economy on an even keel. and there was the term fine- tuning, the notion the fed and other fiscal policy and other government policies could keep the economy more or less perfectly on course and not worry about bumps and wiggles in the economy. now, that turned out to be too

optimistic, too hubristic and learned that in the 1970's when the efforts of the policymakers resulted in the lower unemployment rate which was the original goal but a higher and very sharp increase in inflation. so i think one of the themes here and this probably applies in my complex endeavor, oh, humility never hurts. there was a reaction to the increase in inflation in the 1970's. and the key person in this period is chairman paul volcker who remains to this day an influential figure in economic policy discussions. to deal with double-digit inflation, i should say first that president carter, whose re-election was in serious threat by the poor reflection of

the economy appointed paul volcker to be the new chairman of the fed and in part did so because president carter thought that volcker was a tough central banker who would do what was necessary to get inflation under control. and paul volcker who stands 6'8" and smokes a big cigar certainly created an impression of somebody who is willing to take strong action and perhaps it wasn't a total coincidence. so paul volcker came into office. he was only in office for a few months when he determined that strong action was needed to address the inflation problem, and in october of 1979, he and the federal market committee, the policy-making committee of the fed instituted a strong break in the way that monetary policy was managed.

gos not really necessary to into the details of what that break was and how it worked. basically what it did was allow the fed to raise interest rates quite sharply. as you know, raising interest rates slows the economy and brings inflation pressures down. paul volcker said to break the inflation cycle we must have credible and disciplined monetary policy. and it worked. in the years after this program began, inflation fell quite sharply. you see from 1980 to 1983, inflation fell from about 12% to 13% all the way down to about 3%. so relatively quick decline in inflation that offset the problems of the late 1970's. problems of the late 1970's.