15 years in the former soviet union not only smuggling bibles, but smuggling medicines. it was the worst of the worst for socialized medicine, so i had then there, i have seen it, and i have lived it. i want you to know that we need to stand strong, be encouraged. join hands with one another. call members of congress that are on our side reaching those in the tea party coalition, -- those in the tea party coalition. follow them down the road to repeal. what do we want to go to, the road to -- >> retail. >> join us. every day i will be there tomorrow. members of the tea party patriots, people from across the nation, if you can not be there, god bless you. you can at least be in prayer.

pray for our country. i will lift up my nice to the hills from whence come as our help. god will always be with us. never give up. love one another. also, virginia has a great up- and-coming governor, ken cuccinelli, who was here today. get him in office. god bless you all. repeal. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> thank you, rita grace. next, it is herman cain. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> you guys are great. you know, -- >> you were railroaded. >> you are right. you know, the liberals and the establishment they thought that because of a few raindrops you were going to stay home today. i was in harrisburg this morning for a speech. i was in north carolina yesterday for a speech. i was in nevada last week.

i have been across this country and traveling, wanting to get here to be here with you, to deliver a message to the people in washington, d.c., and to deliver a message to obama and his administration -- we the people are here. we want our freedom back. [applause] >> this is about freedom. we want our freedom back. that is what this is about. it is the freedom to choose our own doctors, the freedom to choose our own health providers, freedom to choose our own treatment, freedom to choose our own health insurance plan --

this is not just about the repeal of obama-care, which it is, but this is about getting our freedom back to just being free to make our own decisions with our lives. [applause] >> in 2006, if obama-care had been in full effect, i would not be here today. many of you would not be here today. in 2006, i was diagnosed with stage four cancer. i had cancer in my colon and i had cancer in my liver.

my surgeon, when i asked, well, and what kind of chances do you give me, he said based upon statistics, you have about a 30% chance of survival. i said that means i have a 70% chance of dying. he said yes. i said first of all, since i can choose, i choose to be in the 30% of survival. [applause] >> now, imagine if a bureaucrat and got a report on their desk trying to decide if i should be approved by surgery, my

chemotherapy, and they saw that this guy, herman cain, who they do not know, but just see a name on a piece of paper, if they were to say he has a 30% chance of survival, i do not think the government wants to pay for his surgery and his chemotherapy. that is what obama-care would do to you and me. that is why we have to rip it up and redial it. [applause] -- re-p.o. it. -- repeal it. [applause] >> this is about freedom. freedom of choice -- the first message i want you to take home with you and keep it in your heart because we have a lot of work to do is that we are here, we are still in charge, we want our freedom back, it starts with the repeal of obama-care, and we

will repeal a whole lot of other things also. [applause] >> as i said, i have been traveling from sea to site -- from sea to shining sea for over the last year, and even though my quest for the position of president was derailed, -- you are not between me are you? -- booing me, are you? [laughter] >> even though my quest for the position of president was derailed, i want you to know i am still on a mission, a mission to maintain control of congress,

to gain control of the senate, and send barack obama back home. [applause] >> that is our mission. that is our mission. [applause] >> one of the things that i hear from some people -- a question i am often asked from sea to shining sea, by too many people, "can we defeat barack obama?" >> yes we can. >> i say to them -- [chanting] yes we can guess we can >> i have another one for you.

yes we will defeat barack obama. >> [ chanting] yes we will >> here is why. the american people are divided into two groups. you have the patriots like yourself -- you have the patriots and the citizens that know what is going on, and you have the other groups that i call the clueless. yes. it is costs against the clueless, and the good news is there is more of ross then there are of them. -- us against the clueless, and the good news is there is more a loss than there are of them, and because there are more of us

than them -- by the way, the using this many clips would come out in the rain? i do not thanks -- this many clueless would come out in the rain? i do not think so. it might mess up their weakness. you are the patriots. we are the real patriots that care about this country. we know what is going on. we know they are trying to take away our freedom. we are here to make the statement that we want our freedom back, and we are going to get our freedom back in november at the ballot box. [applause] >> and finally, yes, we know we need to repeal this terrible bill, and i believe that it will get repealed because of the american people, because just like when the founding fathers started this great country, they had three basic ideals that

helped to inspire this nation. life, liberty and pursuit of happiness -- that is why we are all here. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- and you see, the founding fathers had the foresight and wisdom to foresee that we might have had something like obama-care shoved down our throats. the provision been made in the declaration of independence, when you get past life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and if you keep on reading, it says, with any form of government becomes destructive of those ideas, it is their right of the people to alter or abolish it. we have some altering and

abolishing to do. abolish obama-care. abolish obama-care. [applause] >> we are going to alter the occupying of the white house come november. so, i say to all of you, because the mainstream media and the liberals -- are you all booing me? [laughter] >> they want you to believe that we cannot do this, and i'm here to tell you, state inspired. state inspired that we can do this -- stagy inspired. stay inspired that we will repeal obama-care. stay inspired the we will change

washington, d.c., and i want you to stay inspired with the spirit of the bumblebee. d.c., when i was in college, i learned -- you see, when i was in college, i learned that the bumblebee is not supposed to fly. you and i know that the bumblebee flys. he will see some this spring. we know that the bumblebee fries -- flies because we have seen it. i was in mathematics and physics major. we started that if you take equations of motion and you measure the caribbean and the parameters of the bumblebee reaching the aerodynamics parameters of the bomb but -- the aerodynamics parameters of the bumblebee, that little flat body, the computer comes back

and says the soccer cannot fly. -- sucker cannot fly. we thought we made a mistake, so we got some more help was little bumblebees, put them in a bigger computer, a faster computer, and ran it through the equations of motion, and it was supposed to say the bumblebee could fly, and it came back and said the sucker still can't fly. there is only one reason the bumblebee flies. the bumble bee believes it can fly. believe we can repeal obama- care. believe we will defeat barack obama in november. god bless you. [applause]

>> we are going to repeal it. yes we well. -- will. next, guy benson. >> you know, i am so lucky. i get to go directly after a very dull, uninspiring, flow- profile speaker. thank you -- low-profile speaker. thank you -- thank you for staying. we affirm persuasive arguments that obama-care is bad medicine. we -- it is. we have heard that is bad economics. it is. we have heard it is bad law.

it is. this law is also something else. obama-care it is indisputably bad politics for the democrats. yesterday was the two-year anniversary. the president did not give a speech about his big accomplishment. that is not an accident. the white house knows full well above the number of things. there is a new study out reported in "the washington post" which concludes the 2010 election was lost for democrats because of obama-care. nancy pelosi have bedeviled taken out of her hands because of the law she crammed down our throats without knowing what was in it. they have also seen the recent "usa today" call which confirms that obama-care is a drag on this president's chances for reelection. they know that. they have noticed the rest

recent poll out this week that shows that 56% of the american public wants this bill and repealed, and they know about the fox news poll that shows 59% once this bill repeals. that is not all. there is a "washington post/abc news" poll. 67%, two out of every three americans said either repeal the individual mandate or get rid of the whole thing. 67%. [applause] >> the gallup organization asked what do you think of the individual mandate, which is a central pillar for this lot? 72% said the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

think about this. this is remarkable. after debating this for the better part of three years, more than seven out of 10 americans, not just here, but across this whole country, more than seven out of 10 of us believe the central pillar of this law violates the american constitution. all of the statistics and all of the pols lead us to one lesson that we have won this debate. we have won this argument. despite years and be delivered misinformation campaign from democrats, a president, and a lap dog, obsequious media, we have won this debate. round one goes to the good guys. round two is next, and this is as we learned in 2010, just winning the argument does not necessarily impact legislative

outcomes, right? so, we thank and salute the house of representatives for voting for repeal already. thank you, house of representatives. [applause] >> every single republican and a handful of democrats. we think republican leadership for forcing votes in the u.s. senate on repeal. thank you for trying. we know it will -- it has been said by every speaker, but i will say again -- in order to get this job done, we need a new senator. harry reid has had long enough running dead body not passing budgets come up with a link -- running that body, not passing budgets, putting his thumbs, and, of course, we need a new president in order to achieve those goals, -- president. in order to achieve those goals, we have to unite and win.

thank you. >> next up is ellen cortez from let freedom ring? >> let freedom ring. >> an edge in this is obama-care and its web of bureaucracy? what we going to do with it? we will erase the. they say there are no young people in the tea party. i think i'm here to prove that is true. or this guy here. this health care law is supposed to be a marvelous thing for youth. we can stay on our parents' health care until we are 26. that is usually -- that is really an ideal role. we want to be independent from our parents.

that means we need jobs, and this president, what has he done? he is kept his eye off of the ball and passed a law that six away your freedom -- and takes away your freedom. we want to be independent and have jobs. three out of 10 young adults are forced to live better home. we need to get rid of barack obama so we can bring them a better future. [applause] >> president obama made a lot of promises about his health care law, but when he did not make and probably should have was that he could bring families closer together. all these uses are forced to live at home. repeal this bill. repeal this bill. repeal this bill. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, alex cortez. before our next speaker, we

have a little task i need you guys to help me out with. see this? at the end, we will tear this and say repeal this bill at the same time. we are not like those people that like to break the law and rape people and all other sorts of bad things. we will clean up after ourselves. what you will do is take this, go home, write the date on it, and right we will repeal this, put it on your refrigerator, and looked at it every single day because we are repealing this. we will restore our constitution. 9/12/2009 i helped organize that event, and there is a lady from california that could not be

here with us because she is the home fighting breast cancer. she is here today. she was from the laguna beach tea party. please join me in welcoming linda. [applause] >> i almost faced a perfect storm. right after i organized the first tea party of laguna beach, california, a fist terrifying news that i could have breast cancer. what i did not realize was the terrifying moment was that my private health-care moment would save me. our family had a plan known as blue cross/blue shield, and that provided me with diagnostic mammograms which includes an ultrasound. so, in that spring day when my surgeon oncologist asked me do you want to hear the good news

or the bad news, all i heard her say was early breast cancer, noninvasive, and because i had the freedom to select my health care plan i was going to be scared my life, -- stared my life, and at the very least months of chemotherapy and radiation. what if i had a government health care plan? at the end of 2009, the group that dictates what your health care is going to be, ladies, and men, said women at the age of 50 could get yearly mammograms every other year. anyone under 40 that is diagnosed with breast cancer can be lethal, and the older you get the greater the chances are for breast cancer. this sounds like rationing.

does it not sound like rationing to you? that is exactly what was said by the former professor at johns hopkins university', the first woman to be head of the national institute of health. she said it was rationing, she told the press, and at that time i went to susan g. colman in southern california and i demanded that they pronounced obama-care uh on fit for american women, and i actually -- obama-care unfit for american women, and at that time i said there is something our group says -- "sam, keep your mitts off of our tits." why would the task force do this? it is simple, ladies.

first of all, they are sparing you for -- from mental distress in case you have a false positive, but according to "the huntingtown post" three months ago, they will reword the language so you better understand it terror and you do not understand what they're trying to do for you. -- it. you do not understand what they're trying to do for you. the cost of covering women 40 and over and the baby boomers far outweighs the cost of saving those women's lives that might die of best the breast cancer. to be fair, congress did pass and include in obama-care a provision for mammograms starting at age 40 for yearly mammograms, but let me tell you, ladies, it will not be enough. if i did not have an ultrasound, which found the breast cancer, i

could have been at a later-stage breast cancer. indeed diagnostics. at the same time, congress and the president who loves this healthcare plan, decided they did not think they wanted it. they would have a ppo, so in the spring, and early-summer, i decided to have a bilateral mastectomy because obama-care was breathing down my neck, and not only that i was facing medicare, which meant one half of $1 trillion would be taken out of the medicare trust fund, and there would be a panel of 15 sitting around some table in washington deciding if linda could have surgery to cure fohe breast cancer or a pill.

i decided on the bilateral mastectomy, and in early-summer of 2009, as i was being very emotional, as i was being wheeled down the hall from the recovery room, my husband reported to me later i cried out red, white, and blue. >> [chanting] red and blue. >> my husband, wondering what i was talking about said hani, it is neat, john, and i said where is john -- honey, a disney, john, and i said where is john

adams? when i got to my room a girl explained i am an unapologetic liberal, but if there is a war i am joining with linda. [applause] >> so, today, to save ourselves from rationing, we must get rid of this, now. we stand assembled and give our voice by the first amendment, and we tell the supreme court justices, no obama- >> it is a war of women but it is not the war on women that liberals want you to think. it is a war on every one of us. it is a fight for freedom. we are freedom fighters.

we are going to keep on fighting. thank you. >> next up is the author of "democracy denied" his name is phil kerpin. >> first of all, thank you guys for standing here for a couple of hours in the rain. stay here for a few more minutes. you will prevent much greater pain in the future. nancy pelosi was famously asked is the bill constitutional. and she said are you kidding? are we kidding? do we care about the united states constitution? are we going to repeal this bill? now let's remember how this

impacts us in the first place. they took a draft bill that should never have passed against the people of massachusetts, not the most conservative state. elected scott brown to be the 41st vote to stop it. they put it in as-is. and that bill embodied every corrupt deal you can imagine to get it past the finish line. the uconn, state of connecticut, gatorade for the state of florida. it bought up the hospitals. it bought up at this time form sued cals. the corrupt deal they made with the insurance companies. we want to regulate you out of control.

they took the deal and that is the bill we have now. it is corrupt. the unconstitutional mandate is at the heart of how this whole thing operates. the federal government does not have the power to force to us purchase the product. the united states supreme court had better do the right thing and strike down the mandate. >> when they strike down the mandate they need to go further. if they strike down the mandate and only the mandate it will destroy private health care in the country just as surely as if the mandate had stood. they have to strike down the entire law. and if any of obama care is still intact after the supreme

court decision we need a congress and a president that will do the right thing and will restore constitutional government and will stand up for liberty and repeal obama care. i have been to a lot of tea parking loty rallies. i remember when we were begging them not to pass the bill. three years ago here in washington on tax day in the white house in the pouring rain when our voices were ignored. i am go to do something i have never done before at a tea party. i am going to actually litter. it is a one-time thing. repeal this bill. thank you very much.

>> it is the new obama health care plan. my name is eric holder, and i am here to brainwash you. is this not the right crowd? i actually was go to come out and have an original line this . woman had it on her sign. nancy pelosi said we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it. i would like nancy and barack obama and at this time democrats to read the constitution so they will know what is in it. he is a constitutional scholar, of course barack obama know what is it is. i would like a couple of the supreme court justices reading it. one should read it and

immediately step aside. but that is a separate issue. what we have fundamentally is the original constitution, which hasn't changed, guaranteed us right to life, liberty and property. barack obama, obama care, the democrats guarantee others access to our life, liberty and property. and that is not what was intended. barack obama complained it it is a negative rights constitution. the constitution mentions a lawyer. it does not mention a doctor. so, i am going to be brief just because i am going to be brief. but this is -- i am really

honored to be here. it is an honor to be here and see all of you people out here. keep it going for seven and a half months. november of this year will be a transformational change the likes of which barack obama had seen but not wanted. thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. keep it up. >> thank you. the first time i came to washington, d.c. for tea party patriots i met a lady who was very involved in fighting this legislation at the time it was legislation and not a law. she introduced me to a lot of people. she knows a lot of doctors and patients and knows a lot about this policy.

please join me in welcoming her. >> thank you. yeah. three years ago, two and a half years ago we were housing another rally here where we had doctors. i want to start out with this old joke about doctors. the patient is hunched over. he is having trouble walking like this. he is hunched over in his back. he goes in with a friend and he comes out. he is upright. he is walking like this. his buddy says man that must be some doctor. he took care of you like that. he says well, what he did is gave me a longer cane. it is a $2 trillion cane. it does not fix any of the problems, it just gives us a longer cane and charges us for

it. so, we are trying to work on that. it is like advertising the tvs at a great price in the store and then when you get to the store there are not any tvs. in marketing we call that bait and switch. that is what this sbill. it tells you that you will have insurance coverage. it sell tells you that you will be enrolled in medicaid. just try to find a doctor who will be around who can literally be able to afford to take care of you at those prices. a few years ago we realized -- i have been working on it since we were fighting hillary care. i have been at it a long time here. we saw it years ago the thing of pitting doctors vs. patients as though we have competing interests, which is not true. we at dr. -patient medical association will never let this

happen. we will work together to stop this. what they don't tell you about the bill is that it is unfair to the middle class. other folks want to tell you it is unfair to the middle class. we say it is unfair. the middle class has to pay for everybody else's bills. like that episode of friends where they all go out to dinner and they split the tab and one only had soup. if you had appetizers and a bottle of wine, it is ok. don't tell people they can't have their bottle of wine and their appetizers. we want them to pay their fair share. people ask me why there are not more doctors out there why is there not a sea of white coats out here. you know why? because they don't want to come to rallies. they don't want to stand up at podiums. we have to drag them kicking

and screaming. you know what they want to do? they want to take care of their patients. they don't want to get into the politics. they want to be left alone. i will tell you other things they don't want to request. they call this the destruction of medicine. the destruction of our medicine. doom. they are taking us down the doomsday when we want to go on the path to repeal and the road to repeople. here is what doctors won't tell you. they don't want to spend two minutes for every minute they see a patient. they go to government paperwork and regulations and complying with that. they don't want to tell you they spend a fourth of their time on medicare compliance they don't want to be forced to

think of their patients as cost benefit units. they want to think of you as patients. they work for you. and you know what, i will tell you another thing they are afraided to say. they are afraid to complain about money. they don't want you to think they are greedy rich bastards who want more money, right? i will tell you the truth. medicare pays them as low as $12 for an office visit. we pay plumbers and other skilled tradesmen more than that. patients against bureaucrats. the panel which cannot be practicing physicians by the way. they will be paid more than their average doctor in places

like pennsylvania. ohio. the bureaucrats will be paid more. he tries to pretend he is a doctor on television. it is interesting. all of the other politicians, it is all loaded with lawyers. let me ask you a question. when it comes to your medical care, you want to trust the lawyers or you want to trust the doctors? of course. and i will tell you the last thing doctors won't tell you. they are quitting. they have had it. they can't do it anymore. they are throwing in the towel in their independent practices, and they are going to work as salaried employees. hospitals are buying up their practices. you know what happens when they do that? they become unionized. their politics start to change. they start move to the left

instead of conservative. and you think that they don't know that? they are trying to cultivate a whole new group of democrats to vote for them by taking away the doctors' independence and creating this pessimism. so what, we are going to do, we are telling them no doom. right. no doom. no doom. no doom. no doom. and if you care about this, i want you to take out your cell phone before the day is over and you send us a meanl at info at doctors and patients. tell us my doctor works for me. all right. thank you all for coming. >> thank you catherine. you have been very helpful in the success of this event. we have three more patriots.

i know we are running long. three more and then we will rip the bill, tear it out and then we will make a walk back to the metro station past the supreme court. next quickly we have tom whitmoore from washington, d.c. tea party. >> hey. what a beautiful day it is today. you know how i know it is beautiful? we have thousands of patriots in washington, d.c. and it is raining. when it rains, seeds grow. i know about farming. all of the kids on my street call me the planter dude. i am always planting seeds. when i come to washington i am usually planting the seeds of liberty. you came here in 2009 to plant the seeds of liberty.

you were discontented. you didn't like what your government was doing and it rained. those seeds bloomed. they blossomed. in september 2009 a million and a half blossoms showed up on the capitol grounds. that is what patriots farmers can do. and 2010 you came back again. there were hundreds and hundreds of you that came through the obama care war room on the take the town to washington. you showed up on march 20th at the capitol, 45,000 people planneding seeds. in november 2010 a tsunami swept washington and we cleared out the house and we brought conservative leadership here. you are all planter dudes. get useded to it. and this is in 2012 your american spring. things are going to change this year. ok. coming out of a constitutional

convention ben franklin was asked what type of government have they given us. it is a republic madam, if you can keep it. that you is you. the individuals. you collectively. we have a representative citizen government. only you can keep the citizen in that government. you have to speak up. you have to support your principles. you have to share them. you have to plant the seeds of liberty. thomas jefferson said one man with courage is a majority meaning that men with courage and women stand up others will follow. you are not alone in this. look around you. you have plenty of help. only if you choose to exercise your voice collectively are you going to reap the seeds of your liberty. i tell you that it is time to tell the politicians and

excuses are the nails that build the house of failure. you are tired of saying let america fail. failure to balance the budget. failing to tell the truth. failing to restore jobs. failing to restore the economy. failing to live up to their promises. it is time to get angry. it is time to let them know what you think. it is time to tell them i am madder than hell and i am not going to take it anymore. i am madder than hell and i am not going to take it anymore. we are madder than hell and we are not going to take it anymore. hang on to that feeling. bag it, bottle it, take it shoshome and share it with your friends and colleagues. show them how to plant the seeds of liberty. have you a duty to do that.

you are the conscious of america. i have one question to ask. what decides? who decides what happens to obama care? and what are we go to do together? what are we go to do together? i am getting old. what can i tell you. thank. god bless all of you and god bless the great u.s.a. >> thank you, tom. next from cleveland tea party and one of our state coordinators from ohio ralph king. >> patriots. this week they are going to be looking at obama care. the state of ohio and in this

last election came out with a mandate against the forced health care insurance in obama care. all 88 counties, all of the democrat counties with a mandate vote rejected obama care. it wasn't because of the great speakers and the leaders that ohio did that. those grass roots people are the ones that took it to the doorstep on obamacare. we need you to go out and you need to be the core to us america. you need to take it to the

people, understand over 230 years ago and i went to public school, our founding fathers looked back at the forefathers of our country and why they came here and what really started this country. it was personal property rights and religious freedom. obamacare destroys both of them. this is not about health care. it never has been. we have been saying that. it feels good to be right, doesn't it, people. this is a direct attack on everything that the united states of america stands for. they will take this bill and under the guise of health care you see them going after your religious freedom. under the guise of health care they will go after what you eat. they will go after the air. they will go after the water.

we need to repeal this bill. we need to send a message to the supreme court. listen and respect the constitution. people, repeal the bill. >> brad schuler from north carolina. >> you people are a beautiful sight and you represent america's finest. if you can be saved, it will be folks like yourself who are going to do it. my name is brad schuler. i came from north carolina today to advocate for the

thousands of american medical patients that don't have a sfloice this and are threatened with destruction. for me it is personal. but in time you all will know someone who will need medical excellence in order to survive. shortly after this farce they called a health care bill passed john boehner yelled out to members of congress, did you read the bill before you passed it? hell no you didn't. well it's been two years since that vote and john boehner's hell no describes what we are trying to communicate to the people today. we are currently in the set up phase to a great american tragedy. nobody felt the pain yet that this decision will yield. once it is upon us many innocent lives will be destroyed and we will be forever changed as a nation. this does, after all, appear to

be the end game here. the fundamental destruction of the greatest society ever to have existed. simply put in my opinion this is good vs. evil. all of this chaos that we americans are left with four questions that we must now ask ourselves. does this moment here and now have to be our pinnacle? the high water mark on america? the most exceptional society in the course of human history? no it doesn't. is the moment in time we are no longer strong enough of a people to resist the wave of tyranny that has been against us for many decades now? no, it isn't. have we lost the fortitude that is necessary and required of a people to be able to enjoy the god-given freedoms that we have here in america? no, we haven't. i think we can all agree that

as americans we have enjoyed many blessings with the most apparent one being the finest medical industry in history. yes, the burden is squarely on the american people now to protect liberty and freedom for future generations of young americans. i will call this a code red. so now we must face the fourth and final question. with no easy way out we will have to answer it now. we can wait no longer. question four. are we really going to allow our medical system to fade away and become a leftover to be tossed on to the trash heap of human history? no we are not. it is our responsibility to challenge this. thank you for standing up.

thank you for caring. never give up. and to you all god speed. >> thank you brad schuler. this bill is horrible. taking over our freedom we are not go to let that happen. i say power to the people. this is a cancer in our government. obamacare is a cancer. time to repeal. congressmen will you show me how to get over to the metro

and the car and the bus, please. >> i will show you the best way to get to where the taxis are, the metro and maybe your car. let's just sonder on up this way, all right. >> and lisa may will sing as we head out. >> please join me. ♪ god bless america land that i love stand beside her and guide her through the night with a light from above from the mountains to the prairies to the oceans god bless america my home sweet home god bless america my home sweet

home ♪ all right. have a safe trip home everybody. god bless.

>> hear the oral argument for yourself in its entirity as the court releases audio around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day. listen and add your comments. coverage starts on c-span with "washington journal" and continues throughout the day and then the oral argument on c-span3. >> all day tomorrow we will preview the supreme court case with a look at challenges to at this time health care law and a discussion with some of the

attorneys that will be arguing before the court this week. tomorrow night at the:30 c-span's 0 minute documentary "the supreme court" that. is all tomorrow on c-span. this weekend the director of the consumer final protection bureau joins us to talk about his new position and the recent projects that they are undertaking. sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i remember lying in bed one night as i heard an argument brewing in my parent's bedroom only to be shocked by the deafening sound of my mother's jaw being crushed. my mother's head lay on the chopping block of the kitchen counter and my father held a large knife to her throat.

>> she started the non-profit rewired for change. >> we are looking for real healing. we are not looking to get your g.e.d. and get a job and you are set and off the street. what we want to see is a deep level of healing in the life of the un person, but also the entire community. >> more on sonja sohn at 8:00 p.m. sunday eastern and pacific on q&a. >> 20 of the state's 46 delegates in the louisiana will be awarded to date. polls close at 9:00 p.m. eastern time. the next contests are not until april 3, and among those, md., wisconsin, and the district of columbia.

later in the month, delaware, new york, pa., conn., and ryland. you can watch all of the event any time online at c-span.org. on thursday, the commanding general of the afghanistan war, general john allen, said that the killing of 16 afghan civilians has "struck a blow at the core of the relationship" but that hamid karzai is committed to partnering with u.s. and nato forces for the long term. he said recommendations on further troop production -- reductions would not be made until after the forces leave the country in september.

>> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning to receive testimony on the progress of a campaign in afghanistan. our witnesses are dr. jim miller, actor -- acting undersecretary of defense afford general john allen, commander u.s. forces afghanistan. a warm welcome. thanks to you both. i will interrupt this at this moment to take care of some nominations because we have a quorum present. i asked the committee to consider a list of 246 pending military nominations. they have all been before the committee for a required length of time. is there a motion to favorably report the to hundred 46 nominations? >> xcel move. >> is there a second? >> all in favor? opposed? the motion carried. our troops in afghanistan are being asked to perform demanding

and often dangerous missions, and they are caring about superbly and professionally. general allan, on behalf of the committee, please pass along our unwavering support for the military men and women serving with you in afghanistan. our gratitude for their courageous and dedicated service in support of their families. i know you have with you this morning your wife, kathy allen, and your daughter, bobby allen. i hope i got their names correctly. i temporarily got them mixed up earlier this morning. i'm not sure if i need forgiveness from either one of them, but in any event, we are delighted they are here. >> thank you, sir. >> the success of our mission in afghanistan depends on building the capacity of the afghan security forces to take the lead for security in their country. u.s.-afghan partnering has been critical at all levels, from nato training missions partnering in the field and on

up to the desert -- the department of defense and the ministry of the interior. that partnership has been strained in recent weeks following the violent actions and burning of the koran. the dreaded actions in kandahar province, apparently by a u.s. soldier, has further strained relations between the u.s. and afghanistan. last week, president obama and president karzai reaffirmed their commitment to completing the process of transition in afghanistan. in a coordinated press statement, the two presidents reiterated their support for the approach agreed upon at the 200010 natarus 7 -- the 2010 nato summit, which calls for afghanistan to take full responsibility for security around the country by the end of

2014. this morning, i want to focus on another part of that jointly issued a statement. president obama and president karzai both said in a coordinated press statement that they share the goal of building cable afghan security forces so that afghans are increasingly in charge of their own security. and this is the statement. "with the lead for combat operations shifting to afghan forces with u.s. forces in support in 2013." general allen answered me in a discussion in my office that nato's plan to transfer full responsibility for security across afghanistan in 2014 always assumed shifting the lead in combat operations to afghans in all five so-called trenches, or areas of afghanistan, by 2013. that is good news to me.

i say good news because it has always been my belief that success in afghanistan depends on building the capacity of the afghan army and police so that afghans are in the lead in providing security for their own country, not isaf forces. and to ensure that happens by continuing to reduce our forces. the afghans want their own forces providing for their own security. that is what we heard what we met with village elders at their council meeting in helmand province to and half years ago. when i asked how long u.s. forces should stay, one elder told me, only long enough to train our security forces, and then leave. after that, you will be welcome to visit us, not as soldiers, but as guests. i hope we will be able to explain this morning how the

2013 and the 2014 dates are in sync, as well as the process for a phased transition agreed to will unfold in the coming months and years. the general allen, i hope he will explain what that transition to an afghan leader will look like, and how transitioning to an afghan lead in the final part of the transition can occur in 2013 when the transition is not to be completed until 2014. in addition, we need to know what this transition means for the mission of u.s. and coalition forces. secretary panetta has said that as afghan security forces assumed the lead for security, isaf forces will move to "support and assist role" even though they will remain "fully combat capable." it appears as though even though

the afghan forces will be in the lead throughout afghanistan in 2013, u.s. and coalition forces may still be participating in combat operations with afghan forces in parts of afghanistan while the transition process continues to a completion in 2014. i also understand that the plan after 2014 is for the afghan security forces to still received coalition support in key enablers, such as logistics, air live, and intelligence support, and u.s. special operations forces will likely be partnered with their afghan counterparts in conducting counter-terrorism operations. we also need to know what the transition process means for the pace of the u.s. troop reductions in afghanistan. last june, president obama said that after the 33,000 troop

u.s. surged force was brought home by the end of this summer that u.s. troop levels would continue to draw down "at a steady pace." and that was the president's statement. and yet, the 2013 defense budget for overseas contingency operations is based on an assumption of 68,000 u.s. troops remaining in afghanistan throughout the 2013 fiscal year. we will be asking you whether you support continuing to drive down u.s. forces at a steady pace, as the president said, after the 68,000 troop level is reached by september. and we would also like to know when you expect to make your recommendation, general, on post-surge reductions in afghanistan starting after september of this year. given the importance of having

capable afghan security forces take over the lead of security throughout afghanistan, i was surprised and concerned about news accounts of a u.s. proposal to reduce the size of the afghan forces by one-third after 2014. apparently, based on questions of the affordability of sustaining a larger afghan force. according to a "wall street journal" article last month, the united states is proposing reducing the size of the afghan incurity forces from 350,000 t 2012 to 230,000 after 2014. that article cited a general boulder, the head of the nato training mission in afghanistan, as saying this proposal is based in part on " what the international community will provide" financially.

i believe that our commanders should be providing their advice based on what they believe the afghan security forces will need to successfully maintain security, not based on their best about affordability two years down ever -- down the road. in my view, it is cost-effective to sustain a larger afghan security force when compared to the cost. in billions of dollars and the lives of our military men and women in maintaining forces in afghanistan. it may be penny wise, but it would be powerful is, to put aside our hard-fought gains that we and the coalition have achieved. thrivent support and afghan security force that is right sized to provide -- rather than to support an afghan security force that is right side to provide security rather than allowing the taliban to return

to power. the strategic partnership agreement being negotiated between the united states and afghanistan will play an important role in defining the shape of the bilateral relationship. the recent memorandum of understanding on detention operations signed by general allen and the afghan defense minister wardak is one of the main obstacles to concluding the strategic partnership agreement. another controversial issue in those strategic talks is the conduct of a night raid by coalition and afghan forces. afghan officials have repeatedly called for an end to night raids, alleging that they are destructive to afghan livas -- afghan lives and lead to civilian casualties. but what is often ignored here in the united states and in afghanistan, is that afghan soldiers participate in all night raid operations. in december, general allen issued a -- and isaf tactical

directive on operations at night, designed to minimize the disruption and concerns caused to law-abiding citizens. that directive clearly states that all coalition night operations are partnered operations, "carried out alongside specially trained afghan soldiers and policemen who are increasingly taking on responsibility for the command and control of night operations with a view to transitioning this responsibility to them entirely as their capacity develops." it directs the same directive that the afghan security forces at night should be the first to take the lead, should be the first to make contact with local afghans in their homes, and be the first seen and heard by local villagers. searches are always to be conducted by afghan security

forces when available, and female personnel are always to be used for searching women and children. as general allen's directive states "successful transition will be characterized by our afghan partners taking increasing responsibility for the planning and command and control of these night operations." i would appreciate our witnesses sharing with this committee the facts relevant to the conduct of night raids and the ongoing talks to reach an understanding on those operations. i understand that resolving this issue could help clear the way for concluding a strategic partnership agreement by the nato chicago summit in may. much will depend on countering the cross border threat from insurgents finding refuge in certain territories, including

dealing with the haqqani network through possible negotiation talks in afghanistan. despite the challenges, our troops morale is high and they want to see this mission to its completion and success. they deserve our support. >> let me thank our witnesses for appearing before us this morning. i appreciate dr. miller lending his expertise for this important hearing. and i especially want to recognize general allen, who might be the only witness before this committee whose congressional testimony qualifies him as a r & r from his day job. i know that general allen would

be the first to say that what inspires him to get up every morning and to keep fighting hard each day and long into the night is the example set by the troops he leads. i know much of the recent news from afghanistan has been discouraging, and that has only increased the desire of a war- weary public and our mission there. however, none of this changes the vital u.s. national security interests that are at stake in afghanistan, nor does it mean the war is lost. it is not. there is still a realistic path to success if the right decisions are made in the coming months. the painful lesson we learned on september 11, 2001 remains as true today as then, what happens in afghanistan has a direct impact on our safety here at home. if we quit afghanistan again, as with it in the 1990's, and

abandon the millions of afghans who have risked everything to be our allies in the hopes of succeeding together, the consequences will be disastrous for us both. it does not have to be this way. our troops have made significant military progress on the ground in afghanistan. in four years ago, southern afghanistan was overrun by the taliban. our coalition backed both the resources and the strategy necessary to break the momentum. today, the situation has reversed. similarly, our effort to build the afghan security forces has been completely overhauled. there are growing numbers of afghan units that are capable of leading the fight. the few afghan soldiers who turn their weapons on our troops should not obscure the larger fact that hundreds of thousands of afghans are fighting every day as our faith of allies in a common fight against -- faithful

allies in a common fight against al qaeda and the taliban. and they are being wounded and killed in far greater numbers than our forces. this should give us hope that the common goal of and afghanistan can secure and government self remains achievable over time. it is critical that president obama resist the short-sighted calls for additional troop reductions, which are a guarantee of failure. our forces are currently slated to draw down the 68,000 by september. a faster pace than our military commanders recommended, which has significantly increased the risk for our mission. at a minimum, there should be a pause after september to be -- to assess the impact of the drawdown. it would be much better to maintain the 68,000 forces through next year's fighting season probably longer. at the strategic level, our

efforts continue to be undermined by the perception that the united states will abandon afghanistan once again. this creates incentives for the taliban to keep fighting, for the pakistan army to hedge its bets by supporting the taliban, and for our afghan allies to make counterproductive decisions based on fears about what a post-america future will bring. we must reverse this dynamic and the best way to do so is by concluding a strong strategic partnership agreement with afghanistan, which would serve as the concrete basis for long- term political, economic, and military relationships. just two weeks ago, one of the major obstacles to this agreement was resolved as the u.s. and afghan governments reached an understanding on the timetable for handing over detention operations. this provides reasons for optimism that a similar resolution can be found that a

gradual -- in the gradual transition in night raids to afghan forces. in fact, this transition is already occurring in practice. the strategic partnership agreement could provide a framework for an enduring u.s. military commitment to afghanistan beyond 2014, including joint operating facilities and long term support for the more than 350,000 afghan national security forces that are necessary to secure the country. it this plan should also include an enduring presence of u.s. special operations forces to continue counter-terrorism cooperation with our cat -- our afghan partners. such an agreement would encourage out -- our allies to make similar long-term commitments. it this is the right way to set the conditions under which our forces can responsibly drawdown and hand the lead over to the afghans. the strategic partnership would make clear to the taliban that

they cannot wait this out and win on the battlefield, thus posturing real reconciliation on favorable terms to the afghan government and to was. it would demonstrate to pakistan's army that continued support from the taliban is a losing bet that will only leave islamabad more isolated and less secure. and it would give afghan leaders the reassurance to fight corruption in government better. in short, this agreement could change the entire narrative in afghanistan and the region from imminent international abandonment to enduring international commitment. all of this is achievable if the right decisions are made in the months ahead. far from being not unsolvable, or not worth the effort as many now fear, this war is still hours to win. after all we have given, after all the precious lives we have lost, and with all the vital interests we have at stake, now is not the time to quit.

it is a time to recommit ourselves to being successful. we owe nothing less to the tens of thousands of americans who are risking their lives every day for this mission and for us. i thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the witnesses. >> thank you, senator mccain. dr. miller, we are delighted to have you with us today. if you are under secretary of defense -- acting undersecretary of defense for policy. now we call on you. >> thank you, chairman. members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. i am pleased and honored to be here with our outstanding commander in afghanistan, general john allen. the united states vital objectives in afghanistan remains to deny a safe haven to al qaeda, and to deny the taliban, the ability to overthrow the afghan government. this administration is committed to these four objectives. and our strategy is succeeding,

despite challenges. our efforts against al qaeda have been extremely successful. although the job is not finished, there is no doubt we as a beleaguered -- severely degraded their capabilities. we have reversed the taliban's momentum. and and the afghan security forces are increasingly capable and increasingly elite. our forces are performing extremely well, as i sought in a trip to afghanistan to weeks ago. we are well into a process of transition to ansf leadership. almost 50% of afghans have -- live in areas that have begun the transition process. mr. chairman, you noted as an interim milestone, sometime in 2014, the ansf will be in a lead role across afghanistan. u.s. and coalition forces will

be in a support role. it will take many forms, which include forces bordering with afghan unit as is already occurring in many places -- partnering with afghan units as is already occurring in many places today. it will also mean trading adviser -- training and advising. by the end of 2014, afghanistan will be responsible for the security of its country. u.s. and coalition forces will have moved by the end to a much smaller presence. there is no doubt that the afghanistan war has been a tough fight. in the last several weeks, it has been particularly difficult. the inappropriate handling of religious material at the bagram air base was an error that, while unintentional, send precisely the wrong signal. this unfortunate act stands in stark contrast to the many years of demonstrating deep

respect for the religious purposes -- practices of the afghan people. and we have had to respond to the horrific killing of 16 afghan civilians in kandahar. the department of defense is conducting a full investigational of this senseless act. a suspect is now in custody in fort leavenworth, kansas. justice will be done and any response will be held accountable. we have also been challenged by a tax by afghan personnel against coalition partners. we will have to work through these incidents and challenges, as president obama and a secretary panetta has -- have discussed this last week with president karzai. but it is critical that these tragic occurrences do not blind us to the progress we have made. from 2010-11, attacks in afghanistan were down 9%. this has continued in 2012. for january and february, and

amy initiated attacks are down 22% from 2011 levels for those same months. in october, 2008, there were only 140 afghans in the ansf. today, there are approximately 330,000. and we expect to reach the goal of 352,000 ahead of the october, 2012 target date. almost 90% of coalition operations in afghanistan are carried out in partnership with the ansf, and they are the lead in more than 40% of the operations. we are negotiating a strategic partnership between the united states and afghanistan that will frame our enduring relationship. this strategic partnership will demonstrate that we learned the lessons from 1989 when our abrupt departure left our friends confused and our enemies emboldened. in partnership with president karzai and the afghan

government, we recently completed a crucial milestone when general allen signed a memorandum of understanding our detention operations with defense minister wardak. as you know, we are working on a memorandum of night operations, or special operations, which will further strengthen our partnership. concluding a strategic partnership will clan -- will send a clear message that the united states is committed to afghan security. as president obama said in his state of the union address, a "we will build an enduring partnership with afghanistan so that it is never again a source of attacks against america." the need for a long-term commitment also extends to coalition partners. as the nato secretary rasmussen said in december, our commitment does not end in transition. we will finish the job to help create a secure afghanistan for our shared security.

achieving and durable peace in afghanistan will require some form of reconciliation among afghans. it is by no means certain that this reconciliation effort will bear fruit in the main term -- in the meantime, but it is in our interest to try. as secretary clinton said, any insurgents must meet our guidelines. they must renounce violence, break all ties with al qaeda, and abide by the constitution of afghanistan. success in afghanistan depends on the support of afghanistan's neighbors, particularly pakistan. pakistan has legitimate interests that must be understood and address, and pakistan also has responsibilities. most importantly, it needs to take steps to make sure that militant and extremist groups cannot continue to find safe haven in pakistani territory.

in 2011, some 2000 attacks in pakistan resulted in about 2400 deaths, mostly from ied's. thank you for the opportunity to testify today. we embarked on this fight more than a decade ago to ensure that the terrorist network had struck in new york and washington d.c. and in the skies over a pennsylvania would never again be able to use afghanistan as their sanctuary. thanks to the strength and skill of u.s. forces and coalition partners and afghan paupartnerst is working. we are on the path to meet our objectives even the success is never guaranteed. -- even though success is never guaranteed i would like to conclude by thanking you for your strong support for the great men and women of the u.s. armed forces.

>> thank you. dr. general allen. >> chairman leaven, senator mccain, a distinguished members of the committee. thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our operations in afghanistan. it is a pleasure to be here with my friend, dr. jim miller, who is the under -- acting undersecretary for defense 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 and helping to explain to some of the policy issues that we deal with on a daily basis. let me begin by expressing my sincere gratitude for the support you all give our men and women in uniform every day. that they are well-equipped, well trained, and will lead is a great testament to the efforts of this committee and the work of this congress. on behalf of those troops and on behalf of their families, thank you for all that you have done

for them. in the past eight months, have walked the ground of afghanistan with many of those troops, along with my friend and partner ambassador ryan crocker and senior ambassador sir simon gas. i have met with leaders of most of the 49 other nations serving alongside us in isaf. and 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 and the 10 years plus of this conflict. they have been enmeshed in this conflict for well over 30 years, and i've gotten to know them all quite well. i can tell you unequivocally

three things. the first, we remain on track to ensure that afghanistan will elmaghraby a safe haven for al qaeda and the lager -- will no longer be a safe haven for al qaeda and no longer be terrorized by the taliban. second, we are well on our way to meeting the lisbon commitments to transition security lead to the afghan security forces by december of 2014 and third, our troops know the difference they are making every day, and the enemy feel that different every day. to be sure, the last couple of months have been trying, and in the wake of the revelations that american troops had mishandled and religious texts, to include the poor -- the koran protests, some of them nonviolent, but only in certain regions across afghanistan. 32 afghans lost their lives in these riots, and even more were

hurt. and just as the first of january, the coalition has lost 61 brave people from different nations. some of whom were motivated by the mishandling of religious materials. ijust as we are now investigatig what appears to be the murder of 16 afghan civilians at the hands of a u.s. service members. each of these events is heart wrenching cannot -- heart wrenching, and my heart goes out to all of those affected by this violence, coalition and afghan alike. but i assure you, the relationship between the coalition and the afghan security forces remain strong. just two weeks ago, i was in the helmand province the -- visiting with marines and afghan leaders in the wake of the koran

burning incident when the violence was at its peak. a young marine said he and his unit was told by the demonstrations by their afghan counterparts. the afghan troops told them "let us draw outside the wire for a couple of days. we've got this for you." understanding the gravity of the risk, the -- of the rest of the afghans have assumed for them, the marine continued, "our afghan brothers were trying to protect us." this one staten -- statement spoken by marine speaks to the trust we have built with the afghans, and to the shock absorber and say -- the shock absorbency of this relationship. and yet, we know there is hard end of the work to be done. but the progress israel, and more importantly, it's the state -- the progress is real, and more important, sustainable.

as one afghan manager told me in the latter part of 2011, "this time around, the taliban was the waiting." on top of that success and the fact that we have seriously degraded the taliban's ability to mount a major spring offensive of their own, this spring they will come back to find many of their catches and the, their former stronghold is untenable, and many of their foot soldiers absent or unwilling to join the fight. indeed, in kandahar in december, 54 tollison -- 50 former talibs decided to integrate back into society. they said they found themselves up against cable afghan forces in greater numbers and with great -- capable afghan forces in greater numbers and with greater frequency. and while they were willing to fight foreigners, there were one

unwilling to fight their afghan brothers, especially with the training we provided them. and with the training we provide is critical to our mission. throughout history and uncertainties have seldom been defeated by foreign forces. instead, they have all the mcginn defeated by in -- they have ultimately been defeated by indigenous 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. and they will reach their full search strength ahead of the scheduled deadline in october. it the expansion and the and professionalization of the afghan security forces allows us to cover the remaining 23,000 u.s. surgeon troops by this

fall. it enables us to continue to pressure the taliban to reconcile. it enables us to meet our commitments and on time. security is good in areas that have transitioned thus far, from kabul in the east to kandahar and to the north and south. and later this year, afghan forces are expected to assume the security lead for the two- thirds or more of the population. and as the potential unifying influence in afghanistan, afghan forces were better than we thought they'd -- than we thought they would be. they are better than they thought they would be. they are getting more and more confidence and more capability. in the past five months, 89% of the total conventional

operations were partnered with both conventional and afghan forces. 42% of those operations had afghans in the league. over the next two years, coalition forces will remain combat ready, but increasingly focused on security assistance and supporting afghan operations. afghan leadership is simply keep. and 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 campaign plan from january, 2012, to june of 2013 was conceived and developed and planned with afghans in the league. they are truly emerging as the real defeat mechanism of this insurgency and increasingly, as an emblem of national unity. and this is essential for long- term security of afghanistan.

none of us harbor illusions. we know we face, long-term challenges as well. we know that al qaeda and other extremist networks, the same networks that kilt afghan and coalition troops every day, still operate with impunity across the border and in pakistan. that the taliban remains a determined enemy and many of them will try to regain ground a sprinter assassination, intimidation, high-profile attacks, and through the placement of ied's. we know that iran continues to fuel the flames of violence. we know that corruption still draws afghan citizens of their faith and -- in government, and that this often advances in in certain messages. this campaign has been long. it has been difficult. and it has been costly.

there have been setbacks, to be sure, and we are experiencing them now. and there will be more setbacks ahead. i wish i could tell you that this war was simple. that progress could be easily measured, but that is not the way of counterinsurgencies. 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. and i believe that campaign is on track. we are making a difference. i know this. and our troops know 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 that 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.

and i asked you to please know this, that they are central to my every decision and every word that i speak before this committee. one of them, a young marine who was laid to rest last tuesday at arlington cemetery, was a hero. he knew what he stood for. and he knew his mission. he knew the risks and he knew he might have to give his life for this cause for which we fight. sergeant william stacey prepared a letter for his family to be read in the event of his death and in it he said there will be a child who will live because men and left the security they enjoyed in their home country to come to his and he will walk his streets in the new city that will be billed and not worry about whether henchmen will come and kidnap him.

and he will enjoy the gift of freedom that i have enjoyed for so long. and if my life by as a safety that i have enjoyed for so long, then it will have been worth it. we are safer today because of the sacrifices that our men and women in uniform represented in this letter by sergeant stacey. i am confident that we will end -- we will prevail in this endeavor. i want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, for the extraordinary support of this committee, the support that you provide every day to the young men and women of our armed forces, whom i am so privileged and honored to lead. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you. >> thank you, general allen for

your powerful, clear, moving statement. thank you for reading sergeant stacey's letter to us. it has the kind of powerful effect my immediate affect the i wish every american could be privileged to hear. minute round.ven- we have both at 12:30 p.m., and we should be able to get a first-round in for everybody. general, let me start with you. did you support the president's decision to draw down the 33,000 u.s. search force by the end of this summer, and do you still support that decision? >> chairman, i was on record in doing so before, and i do still. >> is that reduction on pace? are we on track to return to

draw the remaining 23,000 -- with the draw the remaining 23,000 by the end of september? >> i will submit my plan to the chairman and to the secretary of defense, but i believe that plan will leave us on track and on pace to recover those surge forces. >> you recently said you intend to wait until after the withdrawal of the surge forces to evaluate the situation on the ground in afghanistan. and then sometime before the end of 2012 you would make your recommendations relative 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 force before you make that recommendation? >> that was the result of a

conversation with the chain of command, sir. >> and i ask you, do you think it is the wise idea? >> i do. it is the best way to ultimately identified the state of the insurgency, the state of the full isaf force, to include the u.s. force, but also, to evaluate the operational requirements to make a comprehensive recommendation. >> would that be in the last three months of this year that he would make that recommendation? >> i believe so. >> president obama and president karzai in their coordinated statement last week committed themselves into two key dates, one is the 2014 date, which was agreed to have lisbon, for when afghan security forces would have folbaum responsibility for

sick -- full responsibility for security throughout afghanistan. and in 2013, when the lead combat operations will shift to afghan forces with u.s. forces in support. is the 2013 timeframe for transitioning the lead for combat operations, is that consistent with the lisbon plan for completing the transition, or for afghans having full responsibility for security throughout afghanistan? >> the lisbon summit envisaged that there would be several trudges of the geography of afghanistan that would transition over time. we ultimately determined that it would be five traunches.

the first is in transition now. the second has just begun implementation. we are in the process of implementing the third. we anticipate that the fifth and nche will begin in 2013 and ended generally 30 to 45 days after. technical, per the lisbon summit, when the thetraunche begins -- when the fifth trau nche begins, afghan forces will be in the lead across the country. it will be assisted by the isaf forces, assisted in different ways, based on the geography of the enemy threat out to 2014. >> that 2013 being in the league is consistent with the 2014 date for having full

responsibility, correct? >> it is, chairman. >> according to the above wall street journal" article, the u.s. is proposing to reduce the size of the afghan security forces from the 352,000 this year to 230,000 after 2014, partly to reduce the cost of sustaining the afghan forces. and lieutenant general dan bol ger has been cited as saying this 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 forces when compared to the cost of the lost in dollars and lives. it seems to me, and given the fact that you and our military

leaders agree, the key to success to our mission in afghanistan is the transition of security of the afghan people to the afghan security forces. and by the way, it is a position which i wholeheartedly believe in right from the beginning. and your eloquent statement today about transition been the linchpin of our strategy was very sisk and -- as a very succinct and strong way to express that. given that the transition to a strong afghan security force is a key to success of this mission, why does it make sense to talk about reducing the size of the afghan army by one third? and have you participated in those deliberations? and have you concluded that we should see the reduction of the

afghan force by one-third? >> chairman, of course, the no. 352,000 was the surge of force. it was always intended to be a temporary number. the recovery of that surge force would occur sometime in the future. the study that was undertaken was to look out to the year 2017 and to look at the various potential intelligence reality is that the afghan security forces could face potentially. that series of studies have created a number of different force structures, which we believe have varying levels of capability, based on the most likely any potential scenario. of those scenarios, the one which we thought was sufficient in capability, which was the most important initial finding, was the one that had the correct

balance of both afghan national police, an moi presence and an ama presence. that number was about 230,000, but there are a number of options. and our evaluations to determine what those options might be. there is a force that may continue for a number of years down to a force that is smaller than the 230,000, which might not have the right capabilities. it is thought that the 230,000 force, which is a target number -- it is not a specific objective of this time, but a target number. it was the right target, given what we think will be the scenario in 2017. >> there as been no decision to reduce the afghan forces below the 350,000. >> the decision will ultimately come both from the u.s. side and

in consultation. >> we have not decided that it should be reduced from 350,000. >> i do not believe we have. it is not a decision solely for the united states. >> i know, but we have decided that it is our position that it should be reduced. >> it is our position that it should be reduced below the three under 52,000. >> but not to -- 352,000. >> but not to a specific level? >> it is my anderson it has not. >> we need to be aware of the issues. >> that is a good point. we need to monitor the metric. those quality metrics will also be accompanied by a consistent evaluation of the security environment as well. and that security environment will be the key indicator of whether that drawdown will ultimately occur. it will be conditions based.

i submit those metrics every six months, and starting with the next set of metrics, we will begin that process of evaluating what we think that's an area will be in the post-2014 time frame -- that scenario will be in the post-2014 timeframe. for now, there is the expectation that we will draw the three under 52,000 forced down into a number -- 352,000 force down to a number that is appropriate. >> and that number is what he will recommend that? but that is right. -- >> that is right. at this point, 231,000 to 236,000 books about the right number in army and police capabilities. the crux senator mccain. >> i sure would be interested in seeing those studies that bring it down to 231,000,

general, because they would contradict every study done in the past. either past studies were flawed and inaccurate, or the present study is flawed any accurate. but it all fits into the scenario that concerns many of us. that is, the news is dominated by how fast we can drive down and how much we will drawdown and when we will drawdown. we do not hear any more commence to victory or to success. and it should not surprise you or anybody, general, when president karzai exhibits some of the behavior he does that the taliban feel they can wait us out, that the pakistani continue to support the haqqani network and continue to hedge their bets. because all they hear about is withdrawal and pace of

withdrawal. they know what is on the front page of the "new york times" which says debate within the administration about the pace of drawdown, not achieving goals and then drawing down. by how rapidly we can draw down. -- but how rapidly we can drawdown. i'm also interested in the fact that you cannot make a decision on force levels in 2013 until the end of 2012. is that what you are telling this committee? >> i'm telling you that after withdrawing the 23,000 troops, the drawdown, after moving through and conducting operations during the fighting season, in the aftermath of that i need to be able to evaluate whether that force structure at 68,000, plus about 40,000 isaf forces, will be the combinations of forces, plus the progress that has been made with the ansf in combination with the

operating environment of 2013. >> basically, you have no opinion at the end of march of 2012 as to what our military presence would be in 2013. what is your opinion at this particular juncture? >> my opinion is that 68,000 is a good number, but i need some presidential analysis on that. >> you supported the past reductions in forces that have been made. you supported those decisions, but then you also say it increased the risk. >> i did, sir. >> does it surprise you when president karzai starts looking at a situation where the united states leaves a neighborhood, does it surprise you when the isi continues their support of

the taliban and killing americans when we are sounding an uncertain trumpet, general? >> there may be an uncertain trumpet out there, and much of the coverage has not been helpful to this process. but i am very clear we will be successful in this campaign. >> i do, too, militarily. the strategic partnership agreement is being close to being concluded? >> we have not begun the final negotiations on the strategic partnership agreement yet, sir. we think is close. >> thank you. i would especially like to thank the administration for their efforts in this, but i would also like to thank my two colleagues, senator lieberman and they'regramham consistent efforts to get this done.

there is no american who knows more about this effort than senator graham, and i'm very appreciative of his efforts with the whole detainee situation. is often an unpopular issue. the strategic partnership agreement seems to me as more important about -- then just about an agreement to remain present in afghanistan or the foreseeable future. do you see it as had been that degree of importance? >> it may be one of the most important outcomes of this conflict. >> you and the ambassador are working very hard.

>> we are working hard on it. >> dr. miller, do you share that view? >> yes, i do. it is important to reach that strategic partnership. the strategic partnership will be a concrete substantiation of that. it is a critical milestone. >> and you know about the recent progress. >> we have seen the recent events. >> do you believe the problems are continued sanctuary and support id government of

pakistan to the taliban -- support and pakistani sanctuary and assistance to the taliban -- have you seen any change in those major obstacles? >> we have done good work with the afghan government of late. there are a number of initiatives in partnership with president karzai. he has appointed an executive commission. on the issue of reclaiming borders. that is an important move. >> have you seen any change in the relationship with the taliban? >> i have not. >> as you know, the american

people are war-weary. public opinion polls show that most americans want out of afghanistan and this more than decade-long conflict. if you had a chance to speak to the american people about what is at stake here in your view of this conflict, what would you say to them? >> the first thing i would do is to thank them for their incredible support to the men and women and to the campaign and to our services who have come together in afghanistan to accomplish the mission, which is to deny al qaeda safe haven and to deny the taliban the opportunity to overthrow the government of afghanistan. that is the first thing i would say. i would say to them that the

investment in this campaign by the united states and its 49 coalition partners has been to shake that insurgency and dilantin and afghan national security force capability that could -- and to build an afghan national security force capability that could eventually take over. i would point to that as an example of the success, as an example of being successful outcome of the investment that has been made by the other members of the coalition, to deny the taliban the opportunity to ever over ago this government again and to prevent afghanistan from sinking into the darkness of the taliban. they have made no effort to separate themselves from al qaeda. if that were to happen, afghanistan could become a launching pad for international terrorism. progress has been made within

the afghan national security forces to push back the momentum of the taliban and deny off -- deny al qaeda safe haven. it has come by the other -- with the help of the other 49 states that are a part of isaf. >> thank you. i hope the american people can hear dole's words exactly how you have articulated them. -- those words exactly how you have articulated them. >> yours was one of the most important statements i have ever heard here, which reflects your profound appreciation and dedication to the men and women in your league. i will oversimplify what your operational challenges are. they seem to be two in my mind.

one is to be able to embed would have gone in forces -- afghani forces and to have technical advantages. both of those issues have been shaken by incidents and discussion of the last few weeks. with respect to the night raid, there has been some discussion of authorizing raids through the afghan usual procedures and warrants, which to me would seriously impede your ability to operate. is that something that has been seriously considered? would it undermined our ability to operate? >> with respect to the outcome

of those negotiations, that memorandum of understanding on knight operations, it is my understanding that we not impede the operations that are done every single day in the battle space. it is appropriate as time goes on and as afghans take over greater lead in their security operations that we acknowledge the afghan constitution. we went to a warrant based system. that system was successful because we were able to streamline the judicial process in ways that supported the operations rather than impeded the operations. we are just beginning the negotiations in this regard. they are pretty sensitive at this point. i assure you we will get this right. we will not get it fast. the outcome will be night

operations which afghans deeply in the process, which is appropriate for the march toward sovereignty we have undertaken. >> is it accurate to say the taliban operates frequently at night to conduct operations and would not be inhibited by potential positions? does that happen today? >> they are operating 24 hours a day. knight -- night operations are particularly valuable. >> that me turn to the other issue, embedding nato forces.

[no audio] >> it clearly is a potential challenge. you are correct in how you phrase that question. i will watch this closely. we have taken a lot of measures to reduce what are known as green on blue attacks. i could go into greater detail on that issue. it is something with which i am concerned. i take heart in the success of the afghan local police as a model and an indicator of how this will unfold. across afghanistan, there are multiple local police garrison

in which our operators are embedded across the country. there are well over 12,000 afghan local police. there has not been an attack on any of our green beret, seals, or marines. if we do this right, i think we can continue the process of embedding our security forces systems into these formations, undertaking the measures for protection we now have underway. >> dr. miller, senator mccain asked general allan about some of his major challenges, including corruption and other factors that might be put under the category of governance. that raises a fundamental issue, which is tactical success on the ground. mostthe government fails,

experts suggest that in the end, we will not be successful. one of the intentions in afghanistan has been between the central government and de centralized -- the afghans can be persuaded to more effectively de the space centralized? that might be a way to facilitate -- or effectively decentralize? >> let me answer in two parts. the kabul government is going to

remain critical to the success of afghanistan over time. the work that is underway and needs to continue to minimize corruption and provide stronger institutions will be vital. as senator john mccain indicated, there is much work to do. we will continue to work on institution building. that is true from the department of defense as we look to a strengthened them over time. at the same time, the second point would be that what i observed what i was there two years ago was the importance of district level and the village level leadership. the elders of the village, the role of the -- but provide an

avenue of resources back down to the local level. at the same time, continue to build from the grass roots and the village and district level, strong governance. >> thank you, gentlemen. my time is expired. >> thank you, senator reid. next is senator chambliss. >> you picked up right where general petraeus left off. we thank you for the kind of leadership you provided.

please express to those troops who served under you how much we appreciate their service. just following up on what senator reed was asking about regarding night raids, they are carried out night rate in a professional way and a way that has minimized the risk of civilian casualties. it is an important part of our process as we move toward ultimately achieving a victory there. i am concerned about the potential shift of a warrant based approach. my question to you is will that should increase the possibility of civilian casualties and our ability to fix and finish the target? >> an important question.

if we do this right, it will not impede the operations, nor will it increase civilian casualties. i presume you understand we are at 2400 operations a year. last year, we had 2200 night operations. 90 percent of them did not have -- 90% of them did not have us firing a shot. we got the next associate of that individual as well when we did shoot. 83% of the operations we got even the primary target or an associate. in all of those operations, even with & where we fired a shot, it was less than -- even with 10%

where we fired a shot -- every one of those was tragic. after 9200 operations, 27 people were killed or wounded in night operations. that would argue for the power of those operations preserving life and reducing civilian casualties than necessarily being a risk of creating additional civilian casualties. that is in my mind as we go through the process of the afghanization of night operations. >> those are impressive statistics and they not highlighted in the afghan press. with regard to afghan-taliban

reconciliation, the administration has made a conscious decision to overtly seek reconciliation with the taliban. part of that action on the part of the administration is to offer up five bit mode detainees who are taliban and who have been -- gitmo detainees who are members of the taliban to show that the united states is serious about negotiations regarding reconciliation. personally, i am 0 offended by any negotiations with terrorist -- offended by any negotiations with terrorists who are killing our men and women. conversations about releasing five of the meanest man in the world and to have them house in a country where our experience has not been good.

they are retaining the individuals that have been previously released to them. i understand the negotiations now have moved to the -- -- to the department of defense from the state department. comment made by secretary of defense panetta yesterday noted that these transfers were on hold. the administration does not have confidence that the government will be able to live up to -- qatar government will not be able to live up to the conditions we are putting on these releases. even under the conditions that are being discussed, do you think it is a wise move when you consider the rate of recidivism,

which we now know to be 27%? these are five leaders of the taliban that have been declared too dangerous to be released and are likely to re-enter the fight. dr. miller, i would like your comments please. >> secretary panetta supports an afghan led reconciliation. we are doing that with eye wide open and understanding the nature of the individuals involved. we are working with the state department and others to see how we can work with the afghans. no decisions have been made on the possible transfer of detainees. the law requires the secretary of defense, with the concurrence of the secretary of state, to certify that the necessary security measures are in place and transfer can occur.

we are in absolute agreement that these assurances months -- must be in place before we can go forward. no decision to do so has been taken. >> do you have any comment on that issue? >> as long as the secretary, in accordance with law, can certify that they will not become recidivist, there is a break in the process. i support the secretary's view in that regard. >> you noted one of the greatness shortages you saw in our fight was an increase requirement for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms and full motion video. you remarked that intelligence analysts and associated systems were necessary to exploit. since we last had a conversation

about this, you are getting the kind of support from the intelligence community and defense in terms of prioritizing and acquiring those assets -- >> we are grateful for that support. resources have been made available through the air force and the congress. they have helped improve that situation. to include the arrival of hyper- spectral capabilities has been most welcome. >> thank you for your commitment and the commitment of your family. >> senator levin had to go to the floor. i will take the liberty to say briefly that i share senator concerns about the release of these detainees.

personally, i know the taliban has set these negotiations as a way to build trust. it is much too soon to give up five of these detainees. there are other things we should do to build up the trust. i do not know how secretary panetta could ever certified that these five would not be recidivists. personally, i hope he never does. senator ben nelson. >> thank you secretary miller for your testimony today and for being here. general allen, please take our appreciation back to the men and women in uniform. one of the things we have struggled with as a country and

as individuals and as government and military is trying to outline progress and put it into a metric program to understand whether we are 25% toward our goal or 50%. it is too easy to talk about what we are losing if there isn't a definition. one person's success is another person's loss. we established the benchmarks in afghanistan. i am interested in both of your analyses of our efforts in achieving those benchmarks. last october, the report on security and stability revealed that the afghan army units were

only 34% effective independently. only 44% of the afghan police assessed were similarly effective. could you give us your benchmark thought on how that direction is going? are we going from 36% to 40% or 50% and up from 44%? >> let me offer you a couple of comments. in january of 2011, there were 155 battalion sized units in afghanistan. 101 of those were rated effective with advisers or at -- or effective with assistance. one year later, there are 168

battalion sized units and we have gone from 101 to 127 that have been rated in the top three and 11 that have been rated independent with advisers. it is not a linear improvement. it is an improvement that gains capability over time in a non linear way. there have been similar improvements to the police as well. let me take that question and get back to you with the level of specificity it deserves. >> progress and improvement has been attained in these areas of benchmarks and they have been worked on with the secretary of state and defense? >> senator nelson, i am is

satisfied that we are making progress. there are always times when we slipped back and have to regain progress we have made before. we will provide a detailed numbers as you request. let me deal with the issue of the numbers of personnel that are in the afghan national security force. we cannot always evaluate everything simply on the basis of the cost. we have to know what the cost is. can you tell me how much it costs the u.s. taxpayer to support the current afghan national security force? i will ask you, secretary miller. >> let me pull up the number. my recollection is that the request for 2012 was a little

over $11 billion. we requested by $0.80 billion for 2014. -- we requested $5.80 billion for 2014. >> you do not the body weight the needs based on what the cost is. -- you can not evaluate the needs based on what the cost is. we have to have the best afghan national forces money can buy. it is a factor for the american people to be aware of, what the financial burden is given the fact that dec continues to rise and we are trying to control a debt continues to rise and we are trying to control a deficit. secretary miller, do you agree

with that? >> yes, i do. >> i always appreciate short, crisp answers. in looking toward alternatives to violence, it is my understanding that insurgents may be looking for alternatives to violence. the taliban seems to be threatening more violence and more sensational violence. apart from the sensationalism right now of the press following the koran and the slaying of civilian, is there a bonafide effort to find alternatives to violence among the insurgency jim did insurgency? -- insurgency? >> it is pursuing the process of

reintegration. in a spectrum of peacemaking, you would have the political that would be called reconciliation and you would have the individual opportunity for the insurgent himself to come off of the battlefield or whatever reason we have been able to entice them to come off. that is a continuum. where we have seen some substantial success in the last year is in the area of reintegration. my own experience is that when we begin to see individuals re- integrate, to come off the battlefield because their grievance had been resolved or they had elected to give up violence, that to begin a process of decomposition from the bottom of the insurgency. when enough of them began to come over, the leadership had to listen carefully.

what has happened in afghanistan in the last year is that the karzai administration, which in the afghan peace and reconciliation peace, so, the current -- reconciliation peace, sold -- council, we have created a reintegration process, a bureaucracy that has a provincial committee in each of the provinces. on generate 1, 2011, there were about 600 -- on january 1, 2011, there were 600 insurgents that have come off of the battlefield. there are a number of others that have gone home that we call in formal. we do not know that number, but

it is even more. that is something the insurgency has to account for. they have attempted to intimidate them. you have gone back into the fight. your question addresses that issue. >> i appreciate your response. i would hope the reconciliation effort might be successful with the top leaders as well. i suspect that is a more difficult challenge. >> it will likely take longer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sessions? >> chairman less than -- chairman levin and ranking member mccain have given a lot of wisdom over the years on the issues we are faced. -- we face.

our soldiers deserve our support and they have it. secretary miller, dr. miller, you said that afghanistan will meet the challenge in your opening statement. you expressed confidence that we could be successful. you repeated president obama's statement that we wouldn't -- we would build an enduring relationship with afghanistan. you talked about the success as support for the relationship with afghanistan. we are having some difficultty now. we had a problem with the koran. we had a problem with afghan

soldiers killing our own soldiers. we have what appears to have been what our soldiers that have unjustifiably -- has unjustifiably killed some afghan civilians. statements have been made that reflect frustration and causes me concern. general allen, you are the person on the ground. i asked this question of general petraeus when he went to lead the surge in iraq. in your best judgment, you are required to give this congress your best opinion as a military leader. concerning our effort there. if we moved smartly ahead

following the bipartisan decision, can we be successful. if the circumstances reach a point where we cannot be successful, will you tell us? >> i believe we can be successful and i will tell you the moment i believe we cannot be. >> how would you describe the series of negative public events? how does it impact your efforts. it cannot be good. we are members of a great congress, of a great nation. we are engaged in policies that have us vote to end them. we had a situation where we changed our minds. is this a situation where the adverse events can be worked through and this is not a fatal events in our relationship with afghanistan? -- event in our relationship

with afghanistan? >> they are not fatal at all. >> how the you see president karzai? i was taken aback by some of the comments that were made. you were with us in that meeting 3 or four weeks ago. senator mccain made his concerns crystal clear. it was a direct act -- direct exchange. president karzai has made some additional comments of the same nature since then. that is because of concern to me. what can you tell us about where we stand with regard to the president of afghanistan? >> senator, you have put your finger on the issue. there is frustration with these events.

these events, in many respects, have struck a blow to the core of the relationship. president karzai has to be able to speak to the afghan people about putting our relationship in the context of the long-term relationship with afghanistan. i understand his frustration. if it were just one event, he would have a particular view of it. the video, the burning of religious materials to include the koran, the shootings. in the aggregate, those are significant events. he is committed to a relationship with the united states. he was clear in a video teleconference in which i was in attendance with the ambassador and the president. he was clear in his commitment

to our strategic partnership. these incidents cannot be ignored. he has to explain those incidents to is all population. some of the terms he has used, i reject. i reject the use of the word demands -- demon when it is applied to the 130,000 troops that serve in isaf. i reject the equivalent of our forces with the taliban in the same sentence. i understand why, in frustration and anger, those words can come out. on behalf of the american people and the populations of the 50 states of isaf, i reject that term. those men is the troops are

sacrificing their lives every day. just before i walked in here, i was given a report of what our troops who, when he saw a small child underneath one of our vehicles in afghanistan, he threw himself under the vehicle to pull that child out and in the process, paris to himself. that is sacrifice -- perished himself. that is sacrifice just as sergeant say he dedicated himself to because. -- sergeant stacy dedicate himself to the cause. it is difficult to get beyond recent incidents. in the process, where it might be spoken that we all regret. i reject the term demon as it is applied to our forces and

satanic and inhuman. i can understand how, in moments of stress and anger, they can be altered. >> the people who have -- they can be uttered. >> the people who have observed your leadership are extremely impressed. i take great comfort in your honest analysis. dr. miller, if you wanted to comment on that, my time is up. perhaps he would also like to comment. >> i would simply like to associate myself completely with general allen's remarks. it has been an incredibly bouncy period of the last few months. during that incredibly difficult time, in addition to

conversations between president obama and president karzai and a secretary of defense meeting with him, we have also seen general allen conclude the memorandum of understanding on one of the most sensitive issues we have had to deal with during these challenging times. that is a statement that there is resilience. it is also a signal of general allen's terrific leadership. we need to move toward. we need to add an enduring relationship and understand that tragic events will happen. we will continue to have challenges. the plan that we are implementing is succeeding and we need to have the courage and wherewithal to continue. >> senator graham engaged

president karzai about that agreement. when we left, we were worried. we did not know what would happen. it is an important agreement. i am glad it worked out as it appears. without it, we would have problems. we can in belt -- developed an enduring relationship with its -- we can develop an enduring relationship with it. >> it is a tough situation that you are confronting. we are appreciative that you are there right now. let me ask you, to begin with, about two years ago, general jones come as the national security adviser, said there were more than 100 -- fewer than 100 al qaeda in

afghanistan. how many would you estimate? >> i would say it is about the same. >> in our mission of denying al qaeda century in afghanistan, have we been pretty successful? >> i would like to make another point. when we are talking about the frustration of the american people with how long this task has been taking, there is obviously a difference between toppling the government and developing long-term security practices inside a country that has gone through what afghanistan has gone through. it is frustrating for a lot of people in this country when we are defining success as having an 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 and after the taliban government was toppled. we know the reality that we are discussing, that that is not the end of the war. it is a time when the afghanis will be able to fight their own war. this is a culture that does know how to fight. we are being presumptuous when we keep talking about how we are trying to train the afghan military and the police forces. they have been fighting for hundreds of years. we should remind ourselves that it was the afghanis who threw out the telegram which the assistance of a small number of old -- the taliban with the

assistance of a small number of americans. i was taken by one of the comments he made in your testimony when you were saying that they are actually better than we expected them to be, or that you expected them to be, the forces that are operating right now. they are better than they thought they would be, your comment. if they are better than we thought they would be, would one of your considerations when you are making your recommendations be accelerating the pace of our military withdrawal? could you see that as a signal of success or strength rather than weakness? >> as i said to be chairman, senator webb, in the recommendations i made to the president through the chain of

command, an important recommendation -- consideration will be the state of the asf. you have seen forces that just require the opportunity to get into the fight, to come into their own. that is what is happening. we are going to do all we can with advisers to accelerate that process. if part of the outcome of mighty god wishes is that there is a reduced requirement for u.s. or isaf, i will make that part of my recommendation. >> thank you. your confirmation hearing is one week from now for you to officially occupied the position you are now acting in. i want to ask you about strategic partnerships.

the nature of the strategic framework agreement that took place with respect to iraq should have been subject to a much more vigorous participation by the united states congress. when you 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 kind of congressional approval. do you see this strategic partnership agreement as it is moving forward as an expression of executive power? or do you see it as something that is more in line with the traditional role of congress? >> senator webb, i welcome the

opportunity to come back and testify for confirmation. any contribution i can make to help us explain what we are doing in afghanistan far outweighs whether i am confirm or not. i look forward to being back on the 29th. with respect to the strategic partnership, this will be a critical milestone. it will not be the last milestone. we need to address a number of issues that will get more to the types of issues that you are concerned about and that you are raising. we will commit to consulting with congress as we move forward down the strategic partnership. we will be prepared to explain how it relates to future steps and understand that you will have a view about what role the

congress will have in each of those steps. >> if you will recall what happened in the situation in the relationship with iraq, there were two agreements. one was a strategic framework agreement. it defined the nature of the longer term relationship. the other was a more nuts and bolts agreement. but neither of them were brought for the formal -- before the formal consideration of the congress. it was kept out of the public eye and away from formal congressional consideration. i attempted to bring it to a

vote. i lost that attempt. when you are defining this type of far-reaching relationship between two countries, it should not be simply a matter of the executive branch. this conversation will be continued, but i wanted to raise it today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. wicker? >> and more rain from green hill, mississippi was shot in the -- a marine from green fill mississippi was shot in the head. -- greenville, mississippi was shot in the head. the investigation of this case 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 afghan soldier would never have been allowed to embed with our forces if we had known of his history. i believe robust recruit screening by the afghan security forces could help avoid the tragic death of this brave young man. will your team at isaf provide me with a detailed written report on this murder? >> yes, we will. >> what is your current assessment of the insider threat facing troops in afghanistan from individuals in the afghan security forces? i understand this happens so frequently that it is known by the term, "green on blue

attacks." how many isaf and american personnel have died as a result of grain on blue attacks? how many attacks are currently -- green on blue attacks? how many attacks are currently under investigation? >> we have had 68 wounded since 2007 when we first started to track these events. we have taken significant steps to work closely with the afghans. i will talk about what the afghan side is doing and i will talk about what we are doing on our side. on the afghan side, we are trying to accelerate the counter intelligence capability of the afghan national army to ensure they have the ability down to the battalion level to detect threat that may

develop. they have improved their vetting process, which includes a requirement to have a valid id card, letters of endorsement or recommendation from village elders, a criminal background check and so on. there is an unprecedented level of cooperation between the national operation of security, their intelligence director, and the a.n.a and the a.n.p. ultimately, we want to have counterintelligence operatives working closely in their ranks as well. >> how long has this new process

been in place? >> just months. >> it strikes me that that is a high number of green on blue attacks. >> since 2007, we have had six americans who have been killed this calendar year. >> do you think they have tapered off? >> i do not think so. once they are in place, the measures that isaf and the u.s. forces are taking will begin the process of eliminating or reducing to the maximum extent possible the insider threat. those measures have really only gone into effect in this

calendar year. we are going to work hard within isaf and in partnership with the afghans to reduce this as much as possible. it is also important to note that the afghans have suffered from the same kind of threats. --is in everyone's entrance interests -- >> you are speaking of green on green -- afghan soldiers killing another afghan soldier. >> that is correct. it is in all our interests to spot trouble soldiers in the ranks and deal with them. we will provide you with accounts of successful investigations that have

occurred in the last several months where we have intercepted, arrested, detained individuals who is intent it was to harm either afghans or isaf forces. >> it would be good to have been success stories. it also asking you for a pretty detailed answer on the record. as far as the incidents since 2007 as far as when they occurred -- i would like to review or myself as to whether they are getting better or worse. let me ask you this. i understand the " role -- c is being held.r how we know that the afghans will not intentionally or unintentionally reduce -- released this individual?

can you keep me informed in writing on the case as it goes through the legal system? >> i will. i have been in personal contact and have spoken on this individual with the person in charge of the case. he has assured me that justice will be done. they will prosecute him according to afghan law. i have every reason to believe he will be held accountable. we will be watching that case then we will be keeping you apprised. >> one final question. my time is up. it deals with more particular the on the screening process. -- deals in particular with the screening process. i will submit it in writing. >> senator udall.

>> it is good to see you again. your dedication to this crucial mission -- when senator lee and i were in afghanistan, we talk in length about this year's campaign. i want to make sure you have the resources to recruit, train, and equipped a viable security force. i want to make sure that the administration and thedod is the o.d. isng- -- the d. developing plans after 2014. after pseudomonas sustain -- i

want to be absolutely certain we are not going to make that same mistake by failing to prepare for a post-nato afghanistan. i know we have been justifiably focused on the counterinsurgency mission, rooting out corruption in the afghan government and working through a lot of other issues with an eye on the 2014 step back. i would like to talk about what happens after 2014. what capabilities will the afghan army half? what missions will they be able to perform? to indigenous afghan national security forces as a defense of course, or one that is capable of going after the taliban and actually disrupting their operations? >> they will be fielded at the

end of 2013. they will be continuing in force after 2013. it will be based on quality metrics, the assessment of the enemy situation. we would expect to see the 352 for continue for at least one year after the 2014 -- 2013 force. they will be capable of conducting counterinsurgency capabilities and continue to deal with operationally significant insurgent capabilities. wherever we find there is an insurgent threat, they will be focused on continuing to deal with it. ask questions and comments made this morning imply, one of the

challenges we continue to face is the insurgent threat. the nature of the force as it is currently in this age -- hardly seem to be, it may be deployed in the eastern and southern portions of the country. as we are talking through this now with afghan leadership, it will ultimately be their decision. we are having conversations after the end of 2014 on our bilateral campaign. we will have discussions about the time after 2014. 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 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. 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 of the i.e.d.'s that we are 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. the afghan constitution says the voice of the people is the highest expression of the afghan people. there was no question as the committee's report that one after another, that it was the desire of that representative body of the afghan people at the desired a long-term relationship with the united states.

the individual pieces, which remain to be negotiated, the desire of a long-term relationship with the u.s. i do not believe there was a similar expression about the long-term u.s. presence by the iraqis. thankfully, because of this, and the articles that ultimately accompanied its expression, we have a feel for what their relationship should be. i think the voice of the people was quite a blow to the taliban. when it supported a strategic partnership which will ultimately come into effect within probably weeks, another blow to the taliban, that will set up the conference, the summit of the heads of state of the 50 nations in may. when they register their unequivocal support for afghanistan, not just in 2014 but the years that follow, that

will be another blow to the taliban and a signal that the international community desires peace and security in afghanistan, which is not just good for the afghan people in support of the afghan government, but good for the region as well, for pakistan and even iraq. i think the ground is just different in afghanistan now. these tragedies recently notwithstanding, which have indeed complicated the issue, i believe president karzai and his government still remain committed to a strategic partnerships and we will pursue that. i hope i got your question. i apologize. it can rob their millions and millions of resources as well. the ministry of defense has

recently completed a transparency working group which is a complete survey of the ministry of defense led by the minister. there is the interest in having afghanistan not become a safe haven for al qaeda but also a blow to iran and their influence in the region? >> >> just as nature abhors a vacuum, so do geopolitics. should they to leave afghanistan, that would create, in my mind, for all intents and purposes, a geopolitical vacuum. the strategic partnership with the region on notice that the presence of the united states and the international community in afghanistan is a presence that is reassuring to the afghan people. it is a presence that is

reassuring to the afghan government. it buys the time necessary for the afghan government to go through the process of reform necessary, where is present karzai has said to get at this culture of impunity with respect to corruption. it buys time for the afghan national security forces to continue their professional is asian. a stable afghanistan is in the interests of the region. while the iranians may not be happy about an american presence there or a western presence, nonetheless, the afghan people desire it, and the presence of some of the works to the benefit of iran as well because it will affect the cross-border flow of narcotics, the cross-border flow of weapons and human trafficking. the -- there are over 1.5 million afghan refugees in iran. they might be able to go home in a stable afghanistan. >> just to be clear, as you know, we have great concerns about the iranian regime. it is in our interests that we

form a strategic partnership in terms of awarding their interest in that area. we do not want them to fill the power vacuum. is that true? >> that is correct. the sba would do that. >> that is important to the security of the united states of america and our allies? >> that is correct. >> thank you both for your service to our country. >> if i could add quickly, first to reiterate the importance of the strategic partnership and our enduring commitment and how that is not only essential for security within the country but affect perceptions of the taliban and others, including iran. second, to say that we have seen around playing in a sense both sides of the fence. they have provided support to the afghan government and some support to the taliban. if they see it in their interests to stir the pot, i think that the strategic partnership and the clear

expression of commitment by the united states and the coalition is going to have to cause them to recalculate. >> thank you both. >> thank you very much, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service. as you know, i have serious reservations about the stability of afghan security forces. the afghan people have had the military build by multiple foreign powers. according to the recent report sponsored by the army, the soviet goal was 315,000. they never got there because the afghan military was plagued with corruption, illiteracy, and desertion. those are the same problems i

understand we are facing now. our goal has been to build the afghan forces to 352,000 by october of this year. yet, general burgess recently testified they still rely on us for logistics, intelligence, and transport. my question would be -- is the afghan army built -- as the afghan army built in the 1980's did not last, what is your assessment that the afghan army will under that we are trying to build now, and will they be able to secure the country without our help once we leave? >> senator, i was searching for the precise figures. you're sorry sir general allen has them in his head. i will just say that to date that their monthly attrition rates far below -- are coming down, not quite to the targets we would like, but they are coming down and are very close. for the afghan national police,

they have at least several months where they have been below that attrition rate. that is just one indicator of their sustainability. there is no question that growing this force, and then sustaining it as a quality force will be a continuing challenge, but as general allan said, it is not just a path to transition. it is a competent and capable ansf that is the path to success. as we continue to provide resources, as we continue to have our units partner with them, and as we transition to mentor them and then over time, as we move to strategic overwatch, this will continue to be the mission, and it is one

that i know that this committee and the congress has watched closely. metrics do not capture all of what is going on, but they capture some elements, and we are committed to continuing to provide the best information we can on those metrics, but we have seen very substantial growth in quantity, and we have seen -- general allan is better able to speak to it, but by the indicators that i have seen, we have also seen improvements in quality, and the force goes up to the 352,000 level sometime before october of this year, the focus on quality and the focus on trading will need to be sustained not just for the rest of this year, but for many years to come. >> that is what i was afraid of, yes. that is what i have been hearing. if i may, i would just have a respectful disagreement on our mission there. with that being said, i respect the job you all do in very adverse conditions, i really do, but i have some concerns.

what i would say is that -- and i have always said we should be here rebuilding america. we have so many needs in our country. i have been there. i have had the honor going twice, once as governor to thank our guards people for the job they do, and then to go back as a senator. and i did not see an improvement over the five-year lapse that i had not been. our side deterioration. i came to some the conclusions because of what i experienced, but i will say this -- i did not see things getting better despite the best efforts we have put forward. president karzai adjusting course a code of conduct that allows husbands to be wives, encourages segregation by sex, reduces the rights of women in divorce cases. there have been more u.s. troops killed by our afghan allies then by al qaeda or the taliban last month. the wartime commission on contacting in iraq and afghanistan estimates that waste and fraud average about $12

million every day for the past 10 years. that is about $4.4 billion per year for the past 10 years. that would go a long way in west virginia, i assure you. we have given $85 billion to rebuild afghanistan. many of these projects are not sustainable. we could have built six new elementary schools in this country. this just goes on and on. my question would be -- why do we continue to give this country more money for nation-building? i know there's a group of people that make this decision, and i'm sure that they do not want me to refer to that as nation- building, but i do not see it any other way. what effects are the large infrastructure projects having on the insurgency? i was there at the time general petraeus was prepared to rotate out and had asked the same questionnaire. i guess i would put that same question before you.

>> i think the large infrastructure programs to carry a risk, as you point out, of long-term operations and maintenance tale, that i think we are only now beginning to understand. but the infrastructure programs that have been supported by the afghan infrastructure fund, for example, which ultimately will connect the ne power system and the se power system will work to raise the level, will repair the hydro routers, and install the third turbine. while they are heavy infrastructure programs, it has the capacity of delivering capacity to the population from kabul along route 12 can hearts

to the population to the south. it has been, i think, an important contribution to our ability, a bridging strategy which has been under way for electricity for some time. it has provided us the ability to electrify businesses and provide electricity to the population that the taliban could not have even imagined providing. which has given them opportunities. it has given them the ability to support a government and pursue an economic opportunity that would otherwise have not been possible. >> the other thing, because my time is running out, the other thing which really took me over the top which was that the only country that was successful or is trying to be successful in extracting any of the minerals they have, such as copper, is china. china does not have a book on the ground, has not invested a

dollar. i know they expect us to give them the protection they need and the infrastructure for them to extract that mineral that their country will profit by. that is just beyond my comprehension, that we could be doing that there when we should be taking care of america. >> senator, if i could answer that last piece -- it is very much in our interests, vital interest to ensure that al qaeda does not find sanctuary in afghanistan. again, in order to do that, that the taliban not -- >> if i may, al qaeda has presence everywhere else. you said yourself there is very little presence. now we are going to police the whole world and set up shop? >> that is a sign that the campaign has been successful. afghanistan, as you know well, was the source of the attack on the united states on 9/11. it is different, and because of

our history there and our commitment there, it is different. what i wanted to say was with respect to the economic development of afghanistan, we are making, in addition to the afghan infrastructure fund, making other relatively modest investments compared to the stakes we have, and what we should insist upon is that we have a level playing field. not that it is tilted in our favor, but the for the economic development in afghanistan, that we have the opportunity to compete and our businesses have the opportunity to compete. while they may not win every one, i believe they will win their share. >> thank you very much. my time is up. i truly appreciate your service. i really do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. miller, you testified earlier this week on the house side that it would cost between $4 billion and $5 billion a year

to sustain the afghan security force at approximately the current and strings of 352,000. the afghan government has total revenue of under $2 billion. even if the afghan government were to devote every dime that it has to the afghan security forces, which, obviously, would not be feasible, it does not cover even have of the cost. since the afghan security forces are the linchpin of the administration's strategy, this is a key issue because the afghan government cannot afford to sustain its own forces. i know that the administration is trying to get commitments for long-term funding from other governments, but when i look at

most of the european countries, they have budget problems that are worse than our own, and they have not -- not even the nato establish targets for defense spending, much less the contributions for the afghan national security forces. so that leads me to the question of how long do you project that we americans are going to have to bear most of the cost of paying for the afghan security forces? are we talking about 10 years? 20 years? can we realistically expect that the afghan government is ever going to be able to sustain the cost of its own security forces? >> said richard collins, the afghan government -- >> senator

collins, the afghan should and would their share of the cost, and i believe we will see a commitment from them to do so. but you are correct that it will not be for the near term, perhaps for the midterm. a majority of those costs. you are also correct that this administration is working hard to ask other countries to make a commitment to the long-term sustainment of the ansf. in a sense, we are at the front end of the process, but we are looking to get all the commitments that we can to be able to have a conversation about the at the chicago summit, the chicago nato summit, and then to be able to follow that with more of a focus on economic development at the tokyo summit.

understand that before i would come back up to the senate and congress and ask for resources from the american people, we will do everything possible to make sure that afghanistan contributes the amount that it can, that we have done everything possible to get contributions from others, and then ask for the amount that we believe is necessary to sustain the ansf at a level that will provide for stability in the country and will provide for the reduced risk to the united states. >> when i looked at the numbers and look at how for afghanistan is, it just seems to me that we are looking at a never-ending commitment. i am not saying that the afghans will not contribute, but when their entire budget is less than half the cost of sustaining the

troops today, that is troubling. i want to turn to another broader issue. general allen, your opening statement was so moving. the incredible story you told of the sacrifice of our troops -- it is inspiring. it is inspiring to all of us who are aware of those sacrifices and how patriotic our troops are, and how much we ask of them. it also gives me some hope when i hear you say, "i am confident we will prevail in this endeavor. i believe we will be successful." but then i stepped back and recall that i have heard very similar assessments from our commanders for 10 years now, that we are making progress,

the day are hopeful that we will be successful in the end, but that the games -- the gains are fragile and reversible. i also read press reports of a new assessment by our intelligence community, and i realize this is a classified assessment and that you cannot address it publicly in detail, but if the press reports are correct, they are very discouraging, very pessimistic about what the new national intelligence assessment says. one report in the "los angeles times" quotes an official as saying that last year's surge may be unsustainable. it goes on to say that the intelligence assessment also cast doubt about the sustainability of the broader objectives of improving governance, developing a confident and reducing

corruption, reaching conciliation, and eliminating the safe havens in pakistan. an official goes on to report that the afghan government may not be able to survive as the u.s. steadily pulled out its troops and reduces military and civilian assistance. again, general, i know that you cannot discuss the classified assessment, even though so much of it appears to have made its way into the press, but tell me why those concerns are wrong in your judgment. why are you optimistic that ultimately we will be successful and prevail, which would seem to contradict these reports? i know our troops are terrific and that they will do anything

they are asked and even more. i know your own leadership is brilliant. i just wonder if this is due will -- doable. >> if i did not think it was, i would tell you, and i would tell you quickly because i would not want to spend another life in this fight if it were not billable. we disagree, and i would be happy to provide you a classified response. it was not just the commander of i south -- isaf who disagreed. the issue is more in the assessment about the future that it is about the present. i evaluate our success in the future by the success i am seeing in the present, and i am confident that we continue on this trajectory, with the kinds

of capabilities we have, with the kinds of successes that the afghan national security forces are achieving, that we can prevail in this. i cannot, unfortunately, go into details here, but i believe we can illustrate why we differ in that particular assessment, and i have to be quick to point out that i know a number of those analysts, and every single day as a commander, a benefit from the magnificent work they do in producing intelligence necessary for me to make decisions, so i appreciate that. but there were, and you touched on a number of them, and unfortunately, it did get into the media, but there were a number of areas the we believe that we see right now gives us hope that in the long term assessment, the start point for that assessment is just different than we see it now, and i am happy to give you our view on that.

>> thank you. i would very much welcome that classified rebuttal. that would be very, very helpful. again, thank you so much for your leadership and your personal sacrifices. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator collins, you requested an updated classified rebuttal? >> yes. >> is that something you will give us for the record? >> yes, sir. i would be glad to. >> thank you very much. senator blumenthal is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to join you in thanking you for your service and for the eloquence and power of your responses today. my wish is that more americans could hear them firsthand. and they contain some very powerful information you shared

with us during my last visit, information about the success of our special operations, our night raids. particularly the very low rate of civilian casualties, the high rate of successfully seeking targets and degrading the leadership of the insurgents, taliban, al qaeda. you have noted in the materials you have provided the the ied rate of interdiction and success, at least on our part, is declining, at least over the last month, but i think that it is fair to say not that insurgency to rely more on ied's as they find themselves less successful in engaging us in direct attacks. is that correct?

>> that is correct, sir. >> we have a testimony from others that pakistan has made that requires pakistan to make a more significant effort that he has seen no significant effort, and others are testifying to the same effect. would you testify to that? >> at a classified level, i can tell you pakistan has taken steps, but on the whole, with respect to the reduction of the flow of calcium ammonium nitrate, which is the principal precursor, if you will, from the homemade explosive that inflicts so many casualties, we have not seen the level of cooperation or action that we have requested.

>> i think you have answered my question well. sicily, i would welcome any other information you can provide as well. i gather that we are also making progress in providing more of the equipment that protect our troops. and sadly dismounted in terms of here and in fact may have new iterations of that gear. >> there has really been terrific work that has been done in that regard. your leadership and the leadership of the committee has done an awful lot. everything from the undergarment, which is saving lives and troops' futures, to improvements in the armor applications, the markets, to

the hyper spectrochemistry capabilities of some of our isr assets, to improvements in intelligence that permit us to attack the network. all of these have contributed to reducing the vulnerability of our troops and reducing casualties, but the casualties are still too high. >> still too high, and having seen, as you have done far more than i, the results of these absolutely in city as bombs, the effects on our war fighters. i thank you and commend you for those tremendous leadership that you and others have done in combating it. i want to turn for a moment to some of the problem areas that you have identified and others in this effort, going beyond the

military terrain, so to speak. you have identified the human terrain, which includes the problems of corruption in the karzai administration. that is a challenge that has to be addressed. in my view, and i think perhaps others -- perhaps yours as well. i wonder if you could tell us whether you believe there is progress in that area. >> senator, as you know, we have a line of operation within the campaign plan which seeks to diminish -- reduce the influence of corruption on those aspects of our relationship with afghanistan that could compromise our mission. to that end, we have leveraged task force transparency, working closely with task force 2010, with respect to contracting, to reduce our vulnerabilities to

money flowing directly into the pockets of the insurgents themselves. one task force is working very closely with our own embassy, with the agency back here in the united states, with the international community on a series of initiatives, which ultimately can provide support to reducing corruption. we have recommended an illicit activities for afghanistan initiative, which i believe did receive favorable consideration by the department of defense. i believe it is being considered for a full blown interagency approach. we think that the afghan bread -- the u.s. embassy, the british embassy, and others, to include partnership with the drug enforcement administration, the fbi, the department of justice

-- it is helping us create a city to get after corruption. specifically to your question, sir, president karzai, who has publicly spoken frequently about this culture of impunity, which must be addressed in order for afghanistan to shrug off the corrosive effects of corruption and ultimately become a functioning democracy, has created a presidential executive council commission to work in partnership with us to attempt to defeat the organized criminal penetration and seizure of the borders, air force, and customs depots, which robs the afghans daily of millions and millions annually of resources, as well. the ministry of defense has recently undertaken a transparency and accountability work group, which is a complete survey of the ministry of defense. everything from patronage

associated with recruiting and assignment to procurement of systems and weapons and pay facilities -- it is a very comprehensive assessment, which has been built into a work plan to begin to address those specific issues. the ministry of interior is undertaking very shortly a similar assessment, which will really lay bare the corruption issues in the two security ministries, which are principal partners, both in terms of building a credible ansf, but also ultimately being the shield for the state. those are important outcomes. the proof in the pudding is in the eating, of course, and what we are seeking to do is having out design effective work plans. we have got to start checking off the items. that is where we will see how serious everyone is in their commitment to do this. >> on a related note before my time expires, i have observed

some of the reports relating to human trafficking among contractors. there are about 70,000 out of country employees from the philippines, from other countries employed by contractors and subcontractors. i will be introducing at least with one -- with at least one other member of this committee to seek to prevent and remedy that problem. it has been identified by the commissioner on contract think that's a problem as well. i do not know whether you have any observations on that issue. >> if you could make those brief because we have two more senators, and their vote has started. >> you can respond in writing. >> thank you very much. senator gramm. >> thank you. we have a lot of ground to cover and a short time to get there, so let's start with the big themes. general, is this a defining time

in the war in afghanistan? >> i believe it is, sir. >> would you agree with me read really have not had it right over 10 years, releases general mcchrystal have we have the right strategy with the right resources? >> i believe we have the right strategy now and the right resources? >> cell it is really not 10 years, unfortunately. just the last several years. do you agree with me that afghanistan is the center of gravity for the moment in the war on terror? >> i believe it is, sir. >> given our history there, it is also essential for our credibility in conducting operations elsewhere. >> here is a comment -- no one can guarantee success in war or politics. you can do your best. i have a great deal of confidence in your plan. i ask my colleagues to listen closely. you have as good, hard questions, but i have come to conclude that you and your plan represent the last, best chance

for success in afghanistan. do you both agree with that? >> i concur with that, sir. >> senator, this is an essential moment in afghanistan. i want to say the there will be bumps on the road, and you know that. >> this is our last best chance. no guarantees. >> i understand it is difficult back home, but i believe that this is our last best chance, and the only way we will really fail at the end of the day is for our political system not to support the general at a time of his greatest need, and i know it is costly, and i know it has gone on a long time, but we have to keep it in perspective. i urge the administration to stand by this plan, to make sure he has the resources he needs, and i will promise the president

of united states and members of this committee -- i will do everything on the republican side to get to the support you need to execute this plan. in terms of the costs, would you agree with me, in the history of warfare, the attack on this country of 9/11 the cost probably $1 million to plan and execute with the best trick -- was the best return on investment in the history of warfare in terms of the cost upon the inflicted target? >> agreed. >> here is what you need to understand -- it took $1 million to knock down two towers and killed three dozen americans, and the place that came from is afghanistan, so think about what it would be like for our future safety if the place we went to to secure, we failed. i think we would be buying in terms of cost a lot more than the cost of staying and getting it right. now as to the army, senator

levin and i have the same absolute opinion on this -- what is the difference in cost between cost230,000.300 $30,000 a year maintain afghan soldiers? -- an army of 230,000 vs 330,000. >> it is between $2 billion or $3 billion. >> i would suggest that after all we have done the we should take a view that that $2 billion or $3 billion of annual cost is the best investment we could ever make to make sure we do not have to go out again. general, is it your goal to leave afghanistan withdraw with security and honor for the united states? >> of course it is. >> do you agree with me that the strategic partnership agreement it entered into an executed properly is the turning point in the war? >> i believe it is. >> do you agree that we maintain the night raids as a military tactic, the enemy will suffer greatly? >> he will. >> do you agree with me that he

will never allow the program to be terminated, you will always strive for afghan sovereignty in terms of implementation? >> i will, yes, sir. >> will you please tell captain, the man who has been doing this along with his team, that he extended and took a year away from his family that he did not have to do, and it bore grapefruit to you and your afghan partners. congratulations on the agreement. >> thank you, sir. >> do you agree with me that we have a follow-on force, not of just traders, but a counter terrorism force, strategically located in afghanistan, air bases with american air power and special forces units, that is the end of the taliban's dreams of ever taking over afghanistan? >> i do. >> that is part of the strategic partnership agreement? >> it hopefully will be. >> that is the insurance policy with this nation that never again will afghanistan go into terrorist hands. do you agree? >> i agree.

>> and that pakistan needs to quit betting on the taliban because they are losers. >> it will stabilize afghanistan, which is good for pakistan. >> tell me how the people you the taliban as a whole? do they miss them? >> there is no love lost there, sir. they consider that what they call the darkness. >> what is the feeling on the ground in afghanistan of the 85% of people who want to live free of the taliban about what we may or may not do? how do they feel right now? >> i think they are deeply concerned that we may not conclude a strategic partnership agreement. >> i am telling everyone in this committee that if we get this right, not only will they feel better, but i will feel better, and we will win this thing. killing osama bin laden -- congratulations to the administration and to our military -- did it affect the taliban much at all? >> i believe it affected al qaeda as a network. the taliban have not registered

-- there is no registry. >> to those who believe that you can kill a few terrorists and we will be safe and come home, do you agree with that? is that the way to maintain but shall security? >> no, the stability comes from a long-term presence. >> does the stability come from helping the many where they live in defeat these bastards in their backyard? >> not just help them fight, but give the population confidence that it is the right force for them as well. >> i am done. >> just a few minutes because the book has started. i appreciate it. i hate doing that. >> thank you, and thank you both. i think only our military could be accomplishing what we are accomplishing in the most difficult circumstances, and every day that passes, i stand in awe of the leadership of our

military and the sacrifices that you all make. some of my colleagues have touched on this, so i will not feel the need to go into it, but as you know, i have spent a lot of time looking at contracting, and i know those auditors are pesky, but you are aware, i know -- >> thank you for that. >> that we have $20 billion every construction money in iraq that cannot be accounted for. $20 billion that we spent on reconstruction. and we know and i could cite in question the number of products we build in iraq, prisons that are sitting empty, health care facilities that never opened, water parks that stand crumbling. some of this was aid. some of this was serp and what i affectionately whataif, a new thing we're doing with the military engages in major construction as opposed to what we have traditionally done in this country and have all of

that, the aegis of the state department. this is new territory. what i want to drill down on in a couple of minutes i have -- you're sorry aware of the projects we are funding currently. i am aware of the power projects, the transportation projects, and the water projects. i know that the 12 money is going to complete these projects, even though many of them will not be completed until 2014 and beyond. what worries me most is -- what is this new $400 million for? in other words, if we are completing these projects now, what this envisions is that we will start brand new major infrastructure projects where regardless of what senator brown says, we all know that some of the security we have to buy works its way into the hands of the bad guys. we know that they have no capability of sustaining many of these because of their gdp, the afghanistan people and the

government. they do not even have a national highway system with any kind of revenue that can even fix highways after we build them. i am confused, and as you know, the studies have been done. as i began in this committee way down on that end, i had heart to heart with general petraeus about fixing broken windows and storefronts. we have worked far beyond fixing broken windows and storefronts. we are now doing major, major multimillion-dollar infrastructure projects, and i just do not think we have seen the studies that show, other than just intuitively know in the country likes it, that we are putting a lot of money into their economic development, that it actually is helping with the counterinsurgency? i need to know why we are just reflexively asking for the almost billion dollars for this

next year, or is there a specific plan? >> we will give you the specific plan. let me take that for the record, and we will give that to you at the level of detail where you're satisfied. when i took command, one of the most important admonitions i gave to my commanders was fiscal responsibility. i told them that we have got to insure that every dollar that we spend in afghanistan is a dollar that ultimately contributes to afghanistan's security, not ross idea of economic security over the long term. that is why we are moving -- first of all, if you look at our obligation rate, it is not that high this year because we are going for the right kinds of projects. the majority of the projects are $50,000 and below, and that our community projects, projects which ultimately the community had a say in. we will continue to focus in that regard so that when we spend money, it does not create additional dependencies or ultimately create some kind of economic disadvantage. we seek to have that money

really do with the commanders need it to do, which is to provide on the ground, immediate assistance that can be of an urgent nature ultimately to accomplish the mission. >> i really hope you all seriously consider this. i want you all to look at what we are building and that we're going to finish it. i want you to look at the un- obligated monies. we have over $1.5 billion that has not even been obligated. maybe it would be time to say we could do without that $800 million the next fiscal year. >> we will not spend a dollar that we do not need to spend. that is my obligation to you and the american people. >> i think it might be something that would help reassure the american people. we have money we have already appropriated, maybe not asking for more would be a show of good faith with the american people that we are not going to be building things in afghanistan that we really need to be

building here that might not be sustained in the light that afghans -- the challenges that afghanistan faces. and a very fair comment. i have identified money that i will not spend. we recognize we are not going to obligate all the money, and we're going to make sure that we return the money if we do not need it. >> that sounds good. you're sorry sorry. i think we have got to go vote -- i am sorry. i think we have got to go vote. >> agree that we need to make the case on an item by item basis for how they will fit, how they will be sustainable, and to sit on the afghan resources oversight council for the department to spend time on this. i agree we need to do better. we're working on it, and we appreciate your support. we have got to do better on auditing. we have got to do better on contract thing. we will continue to work hard at

it. >> i worry that if we go down the path of new, major reconstruction projects, that as we drive down, a consideration you will have is not just the transition as it relates to the safety and security of our troops, but what will we have to leave on the ground for our contractor? i think we will end up with a situation like we did in iraq. we found ourselves pulling, and suddenly, we looked and we still had tens upon thousands of contractors on the ground. i just want to make sure that those pieces are getting when did together, and we're not going down the path with blinders on. more reconstructing, not realizing we could be in 2018, still building a dam with minimal troops on the ground in terms of any kind of security protection. thank you both very much. >> the good news is that senator lieberman has come back in time -- >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new

health care law. here the oral argument for yourself in its entirety as the court releases audio at around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c-span3 and c-span radio. and that c-span.org, listen and add your comments. our coverage starts "washington journal" and continues throughout the day. >> all day tomorrow, we will be previewing the supreme court healthcare case with a look at some of the challenges to the law, including circuit court oral arguments and discussion with some of the attorneys that will be arguing before the courts this week. tomorrow night, c-span is a 90- minute documentary, "the supreme court: home to america's highest court." that is all tomorrow on c-span. on "newsmakers quarter made the director of the consumer

financial protection bureau talks about the way it is facing up -- on "newsmakers," the director of the consumer financial protection bureau. the met, the president talks about his all of the above energy policy to utilize all resources and called on voters to as their representatives and congress to pass a transportation bill he says will create jobs across the nation. and as the supreme court prepares to hear oral argument on the constitutionality of the health care law, the senate republican leader talks about its effect two years after president obama signed it into law. >> hello, everybody. this week, i traveled across the country to talk about my all of the above energy strategy for america, a strategy where we produce more oil and gas here at home but also more biofuels for fuel-efficient cars, more solar power and wind power and other sources of clean, renewable energy. you would not know it by listening to some of the folks

running for office out there today, but producing more oil at home has been and will continue to be a key part of my energy strategy. under my administration, we are producing more oil than any other time in the last eight years. we have quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs to a record high, and we have added enough oil and gas pipelines to circle the earth and then some. the earth and then some. those are the facts. but as i have been saying all week, we only have around 2% of the world's known oil reserves. even if we drilled everywhere, we would still be relying on other countries for oil. that is why we are pursuing and all of the above strategy, producing more biofuels, more fuel-efficient cars, more solar power, more wind power. this week, i was in boulder city, nevada, where they have the largest solar plant of its kind anywhere in the country. that is the future. i was at ohio state university, where they developed the fastest

electric car in the world. that is the future. i do not want to cede these clean energy industries to other countries. i want to see these manufactured right here in america by american workers. getting these clean energy industries to locate here requires us to maintain a national commitment to new research and development, but it also requires us to build a world-class transportation and communication networks so that any company can move goods and sell products all around the world as quickly and efficiently as possible. so much of america needs to be rebuilt right now. we have crumbling roads and bridges. in incomplete high-speed broadband network. we have thousands of unemployed construction workers who have been looking for a job ever since the housing market collapse. but once again, we are waiting on congress. you see, in a matter of days, funding will stop for all sorts of transportation products.

construction projects will go idle. workers will have to go home. our economy will take a hit. this congress cannot let that happen. this is the time when we should be doing everything in our power -- democrats and republicans -- to keep this recovery moving forward. the senate did their part. they passed a bipartisan transportation bill. it had the support of 52 democrats and 22 republicans. now it is up to the house to follow suit, to put aside partisan posturing and the gridlock and do what is right for the american people. this is common sense. right now, all across the country, we have contractors and construction workers who have never been more eager to get back on the job. the long-term transportation bill would put them to work, and those are good jobs. we just released a report that shows nearly 90% of the construction, manufacturing, and trade jobs created through investment trade projects are middle-class jobs. those are exactly the jobs we need right now. they will make the economy

stronger for everybody. we have done this before. during the great depression, america built the hoover dam and the golden gate bridge. after world war ii, we conducted our states with a system of highways. democratic and republican administrations invested in great projects that benefit everybody, from the workers who actually build them to the businesses that still use them today. tell congress that if we invest in new technology and energy, we can keep growing our economy, but our people back to work, and remind the world where the united states is the greatest nation on earth. thanks and have a great weekend. >> hello, i am mitch mcconnell, republican leader of the united states senate. a little more than two years ago, at a moment when americans were just learning some of the details of president obama's proposed health care law, the former speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, made a comment that has really come to embody

the washington mentality for many americans, commenting on the questions that many americans have been voicing about the president's health care bill. the former speaker said that congress would have to pass it in order to find out what was in it. two years have gone by, and this is what we know -- the president was certainly right to join a call for health care reform, but the giant bill that he and others rammed through congress has made things worse. that is why, as we mark the two- year anniversary of the signing of obamacare this week, republicans in congress are more committed than ever to repealing this unconstitutional law and replacing it with the kind of common sense reforms americans really want, reforms that actually lower costs, and which put health care back in the hands of individuals and their doctors rather than unaccountable bureaucrats here

in washington. as it happens, this year's anniversary happens to fall on the eve of historic supreme court argument on obamacare. beginning on monday, the nation's highest court will hold three days of arguments to decide, among other things, whether the law was amended that americans must by government- approved health insurance is consistent with the u.s. constitution. as one of many public officials who filed a brief before the court opposing this bill, i believe it is not, but even if the court disagrees with me, the consequences of this bill are reason enough to make repeal a top priority. as we look back at how we got to where we are today, most people would probably agree that america's health care system has been in critical need of reform for years. among other problems worthy rising costs of health care for

families, job-creators, and taxpayers. the exposure of too many families to potentially catastrophic health care costs, and the lack of coverage for millions of americans. yet, rather than solving the most pressing -- pressing problems in the old system, the democrats' partisan health care law has made many of those problems far worse. costs and premiums are rising. medicare has been rated. states now struggle to keep pace with even costlier federal mandates than before. and the economy is being sapped as new mandates holdback employers from creating new jobs. what's more -- americans continue to oppose obamacare in large numbers. a recent "usa today"/gallup poll showed that 72% of americans, including most democrats, believe the government mandate

to buy health insurance violates the constitution. this, along with a growing list of unintended consequences and broken promises, are causing many of its original supporters to take another look. far from curing a rise in health-care costs, obamacare is now expected to increase health care spending by more than $250 billion. health care premiums for american families are expected to skyrocket by $2,100 per year. the white house has now admitted that they refuse to acknowledge when they forced it into law a key component of their deficit reduction plan, the class act, which is designed to deal with long-term care, cannot possibly

be implemented in a financially sustainable way. now they tell us. as for the broader impact on the economy, here, too, the reality has proven far less appealing than the president's rhetoric. according to the director of the non-partisan congressional budget office, obamacare means 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. one reason private sector analysis concluded that the president's health care law is "arguably the biggest impediment to hiring, particularly hiring of less skilled workers." states have their own challenges. many could not afford federal health-care mandates before obamacare mandated dramatic increases and the cost to pay for it. needless to say, even if states

are able to meet the costs of covering as many as 25 million more medicaid patients, the quality of care for those who rely on medicaid would almost certainly suffer. in my own state of kentucky, an estimated 387,000 more people will be forced into medicaid at a time when the state is already struggling to provide benefits to recipients who are currently enrolled. kentucky's governor, a democrat, is on record as saying he has no idea how kentucky will meet its responsibilities if this law forces several hundred thousand more people into the state's medicaid program. the map just does not add up. and then, there are america's seniors, millions of whom have learned since the passage of this bill that the health care they have an like will not necessarily be there in its

current form for them anymore. president obama was right to attempt a reform. he joined a long list of members of both parties who want to see our health-care system improve, but obamacare clearly is not the answer. two years after its passage, americans have now come to their own conclusions -- they do not like it. they think it is unconstitutional, and they want it repealed. the time has come to clear the way and start over. to replace this unconstitutional law with common sense step-by-step reforms that lower cost and americans support. >> earlier today, president obama departed for a three-day trip to south korea for an international nuclear security summit. airforce one is scheduled to land early sunday with the president will hold several bilateral meetings with the prime minister of turkey and the

south korean president. monday, the president speaks at a korean university and meets with russian president dmitry medvedev and chinese president hu jintao. he returns to d.c. tuesday evening. >> i remember lying in bed one night as i heard an argument brewing in my parents' bedroom only to be shocked by the deafening sound of my mother's job being crushed. i remember watching in horror as my mother's head lay on the chopping block of our kitchen county -- counter while my father held eight which is led to the throat as she cried and begged to put out of her misery. >> 45 seasons, she starred in "the wire." she started the non-profit rewired for change to help high- risk youths and their families. >> we are looking for real healing. we are not looking for get your ged, get a job, you are