>> we are ready to sacrifice in rder to protect. >> you even referred to the task as political suicide. >> so let me put it this way. on the conflict in 2008 in the a, these are plications of bucharest -- impolitics. if you don't have map, you have something else, like military aggression. and -- and this is the dramatic uestion for all of us.

>> we need to articulate a real clear-cut answer to this situation. let's be frank. we are trying to figure out how to handle it. but the collective bodies that are responsible for this global security are not as efficient as they have to be. and this way i use very diplomatic language. > we move to the back. >> jackson deal, "the washington post". they are discussing sanctions next week. is the government of ukraine contemplating sanctions toward crimea? in particular, are you planning

to continue water, energy, and imports to crimea? >> from public television. mr. prime minister, we would like to know what kind of actions do you expect next week from your neighboring countries romania,akia, hungary, and poland? >> thank you for a very impressive statement to us today, mr. prime minister. we really wish you the very best. on that line, what is the wish list with regard to the national security that you would put to the united states and the european union today? thank you. >> our ability to provide water and electricity to crimea.

i want to be very clear, crimea is a vital part of ukraine. and we will do everything in order to deliver food, water, electricity to our people. because this is our territory, and they are our citizens. >> on the european side, we xpect them to sign a political agreement. this is the best response the un -- u.n. could make. they said they will unilaterally apply an economic package. this will essentially support the ukrainian economy. what is the best way to reform the country is to stick to the political association agreement, and to execute every treaty in

this deal. and the last question, what we ask for? i already unfolded everything. we need to undertake -- we need to act boldly, wicely, and strongly. and to use all tools, all tools .hat are acceptable the u.s. is a powerful country. -- the. is a very strong e.u. is very strong, and they can and will, i believe, do everything to preserve ukrainian ndependence.

if we speak in one voice, we act in concert, we can save my country and preserve peace and stability in the region. >> thank you very much, mr. prime minister. [applause] please join me in thanking mr. arseniy yatsenyuk. >> thank you for joining us. please be seated

that's why the united states has imposed stick economic penalties on the soviet union. i will not issue any permits for soviet ships to fish in the coastal waters of the united states. i have cust soviet access to high technology equipment and to agricultural products. i have limited other commerce with the soviet union and i have asked our allies and friends to join with us in restraining their own trade with the soviet and not to replace our own embargooed items. and i have notified the olympic committee that with soviets

invading forces in afghanistan neither the american people nor i will support sending an olympic team to moscow. according to general joseph the top commander in afghanistan, afghan security forces will deteriorate if the u.s. withdraws at the end of

2014. the remarks came during the senate armed services committee wednesday the. >> the international security assistance force and u.s. forces in afghanistan to hear testimony on the security situation in afghanistan. thank you, general, for your decades of great service to the nation. the committee has both held regular earrings in afghanistan over the years more than 2200 americans have given their lives and thousands more have been wounded. despite those sacrifices and despite the fact that afghanistan harbored those that attacked the nation in 2001 the recent poll shows that for the first time the plurality of americans be that sending our forces to afghanistan was a mistake. i do not share that view. more importantly, neither do the

afghan people. the recent public opinion poll in afghanistan shows that a large majority belief that conditions in the country have improved over the last decade. our troops in afghanistan working with afghan forces and the coalitions o coalition's ofr countries have taken critical steps to deny safe havens and to ensure that afghanistan does not serve as a sanctuary for terrorists seeking to harm the united states. there are a number of signs of continued progress in afghanistan. during last summer's fighting season afghan forces prevented a telegram from seizing the control of any urban center or district center and we they put this month by the independent center for naval analysis concluded that, quote, for the force that is very much still in its infancy by the afghan security sources performance last year judged on its own

merits should be considered a success. and in the poll released last month by the national police. better security. more than 8 million afghan children are in school. eight times as many as 2001. under the taliban virtually no afghan girls received an education. now, 2.6 million are in school. there were 20,000 teachers all male. today there are 200,000 teachers including 60,000 women. they are refurbished nearly 700 schools across afghanistan. maternal and infant mortality has declined traumatic way. the average afghan has a life expectancy of 62 years compared

to 45 under the taliban. only 7% of afghans support a telegram return to power. how is it a large majority of the afghan people think that conditions in afghanistan are improving when most americans do not? they rarely read about positive developments in afghanistan. instead the media focuses almost exclusively on the negative incidents depriving the american people of the sense of accomplishment that they would receive if they were provided a balanced view and as a result our troops have not received the recognition for the positive changes in afghanistan for which they and their families have sacrificed so much. the positive developments are not the whole story of course. real and daunting challenges lie

ahead. the attacks will continue and be the focus of the media. the improving afghan military has proven its willingness to fight but is still in the early stages of building peace support functions such as logistics and maintenance and air power. power. that are necessary for combat troops to do their jobs effectively. the bilateral security agreement providing protections for the troupe is the essential if even a modest number of divorces are to remain in afghanistan. president karzai has refused to sign a bilateral agreement that he negotiated and received a strong supporter of the convening. president obama decided to look beyond president karzai to the next afghan president following the elections in early april. each of the presidential candidates indicated a

willingness to sign the bilateral security agreement and any of them would likely be a more reliable partner than president karzai. much continues to be at stake for the national security and allies around the world for the regional stability and of course the afghan people. the letter by afghan parliamentarians highlighted the extraordinary changes in the past decade or afghan women. she points out that 12 years ago was prohibited. and the prohibition was enforced here ^-caret. she was nearly abandoned in earth simply because in the afghanistan of that time a female child had no future. in the post-taliban afghanistan she became a senior leader in

the afghan parliament. she wrote it has been a difficult journey marked by blood and violence that we have made gains in achievement which would not have been possible without the generous support of the international community and especially the american people. to tell the band have announced their intention to disrupt the april 5 election. the afghan people will stand up to their threats. they do it every day. only if president karzai and the government permits or perpetrate fraud, permit or perpetrate fraud whether the election failed to be credible. we mustn't lose sight of accomplishmentaccomplishment inr we will risk losing and if we don't maintain a moderate level of support in the years ahead, we also risk losing the games

thagainsthat have been made at a high cost. >> i was in afghanistan in february and i observed the same thing that you did so i won't list of those things. if there's one thing i would mention that was on my list and wasn't on yours. going through that airport there wasn't one empty gate. that is an indication you can see what's happening. there is a lot at stake right now we can't repeat the mistakes where the drawdown resulted in the security situations and increasing violence and the resurgence of the al qaeda group of terrorists. we must ensure that decisions about the mission in afghanistan after 2014 are based on the strategy and effec affect on the ground and to do that we must

trust our military commanders on the ground who told me a month ago they have made great progress and it is overwhelming the majority of the fighting against the taliban and and thef the need to continue to support the developed and especially in the critical areas of developing enablers and fighting terroris terrorists. the refusal to sign has cast a doubt about the future of the afghanistan's stability. but the irresponsibility in signing doesn't really matter. well the people by the elders and the tribesmen and loya jirga make it clear that they will sign and i appreciate the time

you've spent with all of us to give the information i only wish as i told you yesterday but we are aware of. >> thank you. >> good morning frank a member i appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning and represent the men and women of the forces in afghanistan. the commitment and performance are a direct reflection of your support and i am confident they'll force is ever deployed better trained or equipped. we are in the final year in the nation to define a safe haven to those that attacked our nation on 9/11. we recognize our national interest is best served by the stable and unified afghanistan. afghanistan is a capable and willing partner in the war against terrorism. we have accomplished much to those. our forces placed extraordinary pressure on al qaeda and

extremist networks in afghanistan. as a result of those efforts are focused on survival rather than planning attacks against the west. since 9/11 and was increased since 2009 we focused on developing afghan national security forces. a capable and confident forces are secure and the afghan peop people. as a result of the efforts as the chairman outlined in the ranking member of the afghans have increased access to clean water, electricity, roads and education but more important than any sign of progress in afghanistan the afghan people have something today they didn't have in 2001, they have hope for the future. we paid the price the chairman mentioned the over 2200 americans lost and thousands

more have also made the alternate sacrifice and we have to give their sacrifice meaning never to forget them or their families. some people have questioned our progress and pointed out the overall security situation in afghanistan didn't really change between 2012 to 2013. that's true and when put in perspective it's also extraordinary during that period of time. and the challenges since they took the lead in june i don't believe the time of an insurgency represents essential threat to the government of afghanistan or the afghan security forces today i'm also confident they can secure the upcoming presidential election in the first democratic transfer of power. to make the progress remains to build long-term sustainability of the afghan forces. although they required less

support in conducting security operations based on need assistance in the processes and the institutions necessary to sustain the army and police force they also need to continue to support addressing capability gaps in aviation, intelligence and special operations. to address these, the mission will be necessary after this year to further develop the self sustainability. the continued counterterrorism mission will also be needed to ensure they remain focused on survival and not regeneration. without continued counterterrorism pressure it will not only begin to physically reconstitute that ret therreconstitute butthey've they have also exploited effectively to boost recruitment, fund-raising and morale. it's fair to ask if we are winning in afghanistan. i believe the answer is yes into several facts allow me to say that with confidence. first and foremost we've

pressured the terrorist network and prevent another 9/11. second, we've built afghan security forces that would reduce levels of support capable of providing security and to deny terrorists safe havens. providing a stabilizing influence. as a result within which they can determine their own future to the intolerance and despite the skepticism is in the mission that looks like winning to me. thank you for the opportunity to appear i look forward to your questions. >> for all of those whom you work we have six votes scheduled and attend:30 we ask if they be delayed in other situations they don't know that that will be the

case but we will have a six minute first round to get as many in as possible but there will still be many of us who will have to work our way around the vote as w boat as we did yed before. we did it very successfully so let's start with five minutes. what is the latest date we can wait to find out if there's going to be security and we must begin to implement a total withdrawal if there is going to be no tsa. >> i will address first from the military perspective. whether there would be a withdrawal at the end of 2014 or we would maintain the mission across afghanistan in the regional approach at the end of 2012014 iowa didn't do anything

different between now and july to stabilize the forc force theo support the elections in april and we have plenty of flexibility through the events are rowdy in july and i would assess the risk of an orderly withdrawal that is a function of the tasks that have to be accomplished. it is into metaphysics or the redeployment it is the uncertainty that exists with the afghan forces and the behavior that we see and more importantly the coalition cohesion in shoring the end of the several months we have a coalition going into 2015.

>> i understand that you've presented a range of options for the size of the post-2014 military presence of the forces as part of a coalition to train and advise and assist the afghans. what range of the u.s. troops would you be comfortable with what they post 2014 military presence? >> over a year we just used the guidance with the defense ministerial and nato in february as our primary guidance. the guidance wa is called 812,00 nato forces to provide that the afghan level uncomfortable with that range in our ability to accomplish the mission with that allocation of forces and over and above that we've always assumed there would be

additional thousands of forces to conduct the operations. >> an additional few thousand is that correct? and two thirds of the eighth to 12,000 nato range, two thirds of them would be u.s. forces. >> we have provided two thirds of the force. >> you've already characterized the performance of the afghan security forces in 2013. can you give us the overall assessment you said that they were able to maintain the security that had been present in the previous summer when we were mainly in control and they did that although they were now in control in 2013. did you say that the control was successful?

>> i would start from the taliban and came out in their objectives we can say at the end of the summer they were unsuccessful accomplishing the objectives and afghan security forces but there's been a couple of recent events that highlight the ability of the progress they've made over the last few years. it was conducted in november and is a good example where thousands of people met in kabul from around the country. the city was locked down without a security incident and we know the taliban and end of the network in particular had every intent of disrupting that particular events. just last week there was an event with over 6,000 people celebrating the islamic festival people from throughout the region came and they coordinate the reference and then i started to the defense on that as well without a security incident and

we also know from the intelligence the enemy had every intent. what we have seen increasingly as the afghan forces that are capable of what we no longer conduct any unilateral operations except for our own security and sustainment and richard o'grady. all other operations are conducted by afghan security forces. but i would say that the most significant thing i've seen is the sense of responsibility and accountability of afghan leaders and also the pride and the confidence that the people have in their afghan security force and i think that has been one of the biggest second order effects that took place last june >> the study concluded the size about the afghan security forces that would be needed into their assessment is that based on the likely security conditions after 2014 in afghanistan the security

forces should be maintained near the current size of around 374,000 that includes army national police and local police at least through 2018. do you agree with that assessment? >> i do and that study is consistent with work that we've done over the last two or three years in the center of army analysis and around and throw a suspense. >> i think it's important that we provide that support. it's different from what was decided as year or two ago. but your testimony on that i think will help us to maintain the force of that size. >> yesterday you talked about the difference between transition and withdraw. would you like to share that with us?

>> we are in the process of transitioning to the security forces and moving forward as soon as possible at the end of 2014. in my mind that gives the best progress for success and to achieve the end that we outlined some years ago in which i take articulated. the transitions to finish the job load allowing them to assume the responsibility of supporting the political tradition that will begin for the parliamentary elections in 2015. the withdrawal in my mind means abandoning the last decade and providing al qaeda the space they began to conduct operations. >> one of the difficult things that is intangible is what would have happened.

it would be led to something that was planned in this country like the new york city subway stop. from the military perspective would you say that we can improve our actions that could have prevented another 9/11 type of attack? >> there's no end out -- about to use the afghan pakistan region from which to make that attack if there is any doubt of the pressure we've had on the last ten years in particular has presented them from doing that. >> iab leave a lot of the people don't and i think it's important that in the military you talk about observations and what could have happened and what are

we doing that is known as noticeable today as it should be. i can remember in the beginning as the time has gone by and statements that have been made is very effective what does that mean not fully developed? >> the afghan forces what they don't have are the systems in the processes and institutions to be self-sustaining. at the ministerial level it's simple things like getting the parts distributed and pay systems and fuel. we call those the functions that allow them to be self-sustaini

self-sustaining. it's different today than we were in the past. now we are helping develop the systems to be self-sustaining when we reduced the smaller presence. >> without putting our people in harms way as it was in the past. >> in a different way. we are still in a combat zone but the risk is being assumed by afghan security forces. >> thank you general for your service. can you give the indication of the afghan forces to protect the election process in april and also there will be the runoff

when will the process conclude? >> the afghan security forces began to plan for the elections and there are probably five or six months ahead of where they were in 2009. one of the indicators of what we would see to place last summer when they were in the lead during the registration process. i mentioned the security they provided and also mentioned the security they provided that for all indicators of the capability of the afghans to provide security. one interesting statistic is during the elections of 2009 there were 250,000 people in uniform that the coalition force and afghan forces providing security during the period of time. they would be forces providing security for the elections 375,000 of which would be afghan so that is a strong indicator

not only of the performance over the past several months but also just in the inherent capabilities that would be on display in the fifth of april of this year. if there is a runoff they would have a president in august of 2014. >> so that falls enough period of time you are still capable of making a transition were going from several options. >> you've indicated several times in your testimony about the positive public opinions that report to the national security forces and can you give an indication of why that's the case and also will that translate to support of the government of afghanistan? the situation is where armies might have support or security forces but it doesn't translate.

>> that's when the afghan security forces will lead and i can remember in particular a conversation i had in the former defense member a big man who you probably have met him and during that ceremony he leaned over to me almost with tears in his eyes and he said you have no idea what it means to be responsible for the security of your own country and i want to thank you. we have seen very young men and women providing security increasing pride. we set out last spring we laid out the campaign objectives with confidence capable forces but as importantly over 80% have a positive assessment of the afghan security forces the army

in particular. we had a pretty sad incident take place where 21 afghan forces were killed. that was turned into a positive in the wake of that event. the outrage that people felt they had been attacked by the tablet and was actually a great indicator of the developing nationalism that they have in their country but as importantly the pride in the afghan forces and that has had a positive effect on the forces themselves because if the people are proud of them and what they do and they appreciate it recognize what they do and sacrifices they make they are more encouraged. there is a lot in terms of the development we can look at helicopters and mobile stryker vehicles and weapons systems.

we can look at the tactics, techniques and procedures and those are very positive but the human factors and it's a sense of pride and responsibility and accountability. but it is a sense of ownership of afghan forces. it does that translate into support for the afghan government? interestingly enough about 80% of the afghan people have confidence that the government is heading in the right direction and 52% of them actually the leave things over the last year have improved. that is high when you look at the statistic in the united states right now is about 37% so it is a great degree of confidence inside afghanistan right now and we are encouraged. >> my time is all but expired. if you could indicate to us if

it's concluded to the satisfaction of both sides your estimate of how long the residual force will stay unless you can give a very brief answer and take that for the record. there is a great source of pride to all of us in afghanistan and iraq and we appreciate your incredible service. several officials in the department attempting to characterize the status. was it in afghanistan and pakistan?

>> in the pressure that we put in at work over the last few years i would characterize all qaeda in afghanistan as in survival mode. >> the general stated last year that he would've needed 20,000 . troops in afghanistan after 2014. as i understand we are down to 10,000 plus a few thousand nato troops. could you state how many troops we made and for how long? >> i'm comfortable with the range we talked about earlier in terms of the 812,000 with another mission over and above that to conduct counterterrorism that would be the mission. i think what's important when we start to talk about numbers is what we expect the forces to do is evil overtime as the afghan forces have increased their capability. while we will be doing in 2015 largely is assessing and addressing the self sustainability of the forces.

they would be in the lead and the fight and the only operations i would envision us conducting in 2015 against the enemy would be operations in the mission. >> your view woul of the 10,000s several thousand troops. >> uncomfortable with the range of forces. the new plan would start with 10,000 american troops that number would decline under the two-year drawdown schedule. the number would be close to zero by the time that mr. obama leaves office in 2017 and in your professional military opinion does the course of action in tail the level of the mission that he would find acceptable? >> we provided the president with a range of options and all

of those have articulated conditions that would hav that e made over time and the risk associated and not meeting those conditions. >> what yowould you say that ita high risk if we had a sharp decline under the drawdown schedule so that the close to zero by the time mr. obama leaves office in early 2017? >> that would depend on the environment. >> so whether it would be an increased risk or not. >> there would be increased risk senator. >> if we would be close to zero by the time he leaves office in early 2017 i could not support remaining keeping troops behind because it would be a needless risk of american lives. the owner without you can't deal

any further with president karzai right-click >> i think that is fair to say. >> but we also know that the presidential candidates favor them and say that they would assign is that correct they also support. >> and you are capable and ready to make plans for the signing sometime after the presidential election you are capable of adjusting to that eventuality but it would be harder if there is a runoff. to maintain the option of period of time without any difficulty. >> it's disturbing to me to hear the president say the longer that he waits.

i don't get that connection. why would the intransigence dictate the number of troops and missions that was part of the residual force? i can't talk to that. >> are we able to get out all of the equipment we are able to get out of afghanistan on schedule? >> i'm absolutely confident we will be able to do that. due to the great efforts we have reasonably ends in the system and i am not concerned about the loss for the distribution network. >> are you confident with the level that is left behind of 10,000 plus forces that the afghan military will have

capabilities such as close air support and especially intelligence capabilities? >> two of the things you mentioned would exist in 2015. the afghan air force and the intelligence special operations capability won't be fully developed and still have gaps in the ministerial capacity. those are the main areas to be focused on in 2015. >> so in your view if we left afghanistan with no residual force we could see a replay of the scenario? >> if we leave at the end of 2014 the security forces will begin to deteriorate, and i think the only debate is the pace of the deterioration.

>> all of us are very proud of the service you have rendered and continue to render. >> everyone has eluted to your service. this has defined a whole generation and we have reached a decision point in the conflict. you talked about the amount of time that you would need it if there is a new president in a different direction. it doesn't look like he is going to release whatsoever building a fortress so he remains to be a force. i don't see how anything would change.

do you acknowledge that? i acknowledge the intent to remain influential in afghanistan but also all of the presidential candidates that are publicly articulating the need for the u.s. coalition but more encouraged by the day today polling where we have 80% of the people that recognize their future is inextricably linked to the presence of the coalition and u.s. forces. >> i'm saying is basically has russia and putin all over it. that may or may not be the intent. i don't know but i'm not sure that reflects his capability. >> let me speak to this. i've been critical about the amount of contractors and we have 78,000 contractors in afghanistan and 33,000 troops.

>> the number also supports the nato forces of about 45,000 total forces. can you tell me contracting with those forces be reduced relative to the combat forces? >> we would be reducing contractors i think we reduced them some 50% over the last 12 months. >> we have about 2,000 that are a million dollars apiece. >> we still have 2,000. are you referring to the ones we have declared? it's hard to go home and explain to them how we can go ahead and build something and disregard it like it wasn't any value. >> we are not discarding them. we have about 1200 right now

declared as excess. we are in the process of seeing if they can use those vehicles and the services are going back to. i put a stop on those that are damaged. one of the challenges is that if we want to give them to somebody they have to accept them as it is ever so it is expensive for the countries to take those vehicles from afghanistan. it costs less than 10,000 to destroy the vehicle and it would cost over $50,000 to move to another location so to give it to somebody else we would have to invest a significant amount. >> that we have to spend a million dollars to replace it. >> the surface have identified the requirement they would need already back in the united states and not in afghanistan.

>> can you honestly tell the american people that we should be in afghanistan and it's our purpose to do that? our mission was to find al qaeda, not to rebuild the nati nation. we like a good fight and sometimes we will fight each other just to stay in practice. this makes no sense anywhere i go in my state. >> if we don't continue the job so they can replace us we will have a good fight. >> what is the casualty now from green and blue? >> we had inside attacks during 2014 we had 48 of them in 2012. >> i've gone to a wounded warrior dinner i thought he was

one of the support staff. they got him to engage more in his story for me apart. we have to get them to a higher-level? i don't think we are ever going to get to that mentality. >> i don't know how the answer these types of questions. >> when i look at where we were in 2009 the first trip i made there were ten of us in the afghan forces. the ratio now is completely inverse and in a small presence we have today and continue to have after 2015 we make sure the investment we have made would have passed the results in achieving our objectives of the

stable secure afghanistan from which we cannot be attacked. >> are we to tell the american people and the citizens we have to maintain a constant presence is this what afghanistan is turning into? >> i wouldn't assess that to be the case. >> is there a time we can't accept? thirteen years having done the job how many more do you think it will take? that is the question i cannot answer. we are doing the job you can't get the job done. >> i would assume because we have a national interest to the united states would be engaged in the region.

>> mr. chairman thank you for your service how can my friend from west virginia have the view that he has got we disagree most vigorously with the point of view he set forth in his questions and i hope people listening today in the united states and capitol hill. i hope people are listening to the committee who made a remarkable opening statement which i would like to refer to, and frankly i would say to my colleagues who have a different

view if there's a frustration on the part of the chairman of the american people haven't been given a balanced view about the success we've had in afghanistan and a balanced du about the american interest that we will continue to have regardless what the decision of the administration is going forward over the next few months the chair man in his opening statement today regrets that the morality of americans belief that sending forces to afghanistan was a mistake. the general, i don't think we should forget what happened in 2001. we went into afghanistan by a virtually unanimous vote in the congress. i was in the house of representatives at the time there was a dissenting vote in the house of representatives and as far as i know it was unanimous here in the senate. i'm not going to say that every

decision that has been made since we went in. the large budget would he believe the conditions in the country have improved over the last decade. they appear to be getting the picture of the success story the afghan people see it on the ground and that is reflected by the vote. is it a group that represents only a section of the country or is it pretty much a cross section that nytimes but kennedy about how many factions and ethnic groups were represented by the loya jirga?

is the participants in all of the 34 provinces in afghanistan. all the tribes were represented and i think it's fair to say that it was a representative sample of afghan leadership and what was their view about the importance of continued american participation and involvement in the stability of the region after this presidential election? >> they end the worst the agreement on the coalition presence after 2015. and it also points out that the loyloya jirga of most importanty would point out the voyager got is representative of the sentiment of the afghan people at the lowest 67% and in the polling that we have done supports the bilateral security agreement in the continued presence and the only thing that i would like to say, senator is just ten days ago i met with the

nine members of the parliament tparliamentbasically the oversit committees, the afghan security forces and i asked them which message i should come back and deliver when it came back to testimony and they also all of them overwhelmingly said don't let one individual speak for afghanistan. the afghan people appreciate what the american people have done and recognize that their future here in afghanistan is inextricably linked to the continued presence and so it's not the view of the loya jirga that the united states has invaded the country were that the united states of america wants to occupy afghanistan over the long haul that's not their view? >> we certainly have no intention of doing that. >> i believe you mentioned in your testimony that this is a

feeling of afghan government officials, civil leaders and the appreciations of the effort is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i have two_what the distinguished chair man has said on the second page of the testimony. the american people rarely read about the developments in afghanistan and exclusively on the negative depriving the american people on the sense of accomplishment they would receive given a balanced view so i appreciate you being here today, general to give us a balanced view and maybe it may be incumbent upon us on both sides of the dais not as republicans and democrats and as americans to say the truths that

have sacrificed, the american taxpayer that sacrificed over more than a decade has resulted in tangible and positive accomplishments for the people in the region and also that affect the american interest in a positive way and i just hope we don't lose our resolve. we can decide as a body politic to lose the war nonetheless. we can do it if we try. but we are at the point of having a success, and if we don't send to the afghan people a signal that we are abandoning them, that we are once again going to look another way and get interested in something else we don't send that signal we could have a historical partnership that can leave us with their with a very small

footprint with the united states still looking out for its national interest. but doing so as you have done in your comrades turning this fight over to the locals as partners that are sending the signal that we are not going to forget about them once again. thank you for indulging me mr. chairman. thank you for your profound statement which tells the truth to the american people about the success to this area. thank you. >> thank you much, senator for your steadfastness along the way. senator shaheen. >> i can't imagine focusing on

the negative controversy. general, thank you very much for being here this morning for your service to the country. one of the things that has impressed me on the trips i have made it to afghanistan has been a close relationship between what happens in afghanistan and what happens in pakistan. and i wonder if you could assess the kind of role that you think pakistan can play post 2014 and also if you can speak to the efforts into pakistan to engage with the television and how that might affect its happening in afghanistan. >> thanks for the question and i find it difficult to envision success in the region without cooperation in pakistan and

without an effective relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. over the past year i've been encouraged on a couple fronts. one is ideally the pakistan recognizes the ex essentials for extremism to their own security and they also recognize that it is not in their best interests to have anything other than a stable secure and unified afghanistan. and since august, the heads of state have met four times which i think is very positive. that hadn't happened in quite some time with the prime minister sharif has come the result to improve the relationship in afghanistan and pakistan ended in the areas they have identified for cooperation are important to point out and one is to have the common definition to cooperate on dealing with extremism and the other to come up with a broad management framework that would address the political and economic issues between the two countries. our role is to work on developing the constructive

military relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. i met with the chief of staff. he's indicated strong resolve to improve the relationship in the national security forces in the pakistani army as have his afghan counterpart and we will spend a lot of time over the next few months doing that. one of the things we want to accomplish is to have a bilateral relationship between afghanistan and pakistan that heretofore the last few years it's been true mother wrote. we've played an important facilitating role and we hope over time to work ourselves out of that role and maintain effective provider will relationships with both countries between the united states and pakistan and the united states and afghanistan but play less of a role in the important relationship between the two countries. >> can you speak to the efforts to engage in talks with the taliban on the part of pakistan.

in the status oand the status oe discussions that we have seen recently. against the ttp what we know is what you know and that is the premaster and pakistan are committed to try to find a peaceful resolution. it's just not clear to me if the conditions were set for constructive peace talks and the government of pakistan but it's clear that they are working to an end. stack one of the things you commented on have been volunteering to help with elections in april. for the first time since the

afghanistan security force fund was established by me was authorized last year for the recruitment of retention forces. i think it speaks to the end power meant over the women of afghanistan. of the dedication of the fund to help assist with recruiting women into keeping them in the services in afghanistan and whether we are seeing any of the benefits of that yet. >> participating in the security forces and the army there is a stated goal of 10% if we are at about 1%. there are signs of progress we recently saw the first appointed

in afghanistan that is in line to become a police chase that is a positive sign. there are some general officers and the minister of interior and of defense, so there are some role models coming up. in the case of the 13,000 it's kind of interesting for 13,000 have been identified. i think that you will find encouraging he plans to use the 13,000 as a pool to which to recruit so as they identified iy themselves as willing to step up and do something as important as a searcher to facilitate the transition to occur he also recognizes that as an eligible pool of women that would make any plans to use that. he has the goal of increasing afghanistan by 5,000 in the next 24 months ended in 2017 m-mike

sense is that he's very committed to that and my sense is also the cultural challenges is going to take some time before that happens in certainly if you would look in the prospects in the security ministries it certainly is much higher than even two or three years ago. .. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your steadfast leadership, mr. dunford. all of us admire your leadership and your service to our country and i want to thank you for your

sacrifice that your family has been making during your service in afghanistan as well. i want to ask you, general, if we were to withdrawal from year, what this happens to the women in afghanistan? senator, i think the plight of women would be pretty dire if we were to withdrawal at the end of 2014. we are actually providing -- i think the support we provided -- the support we are providing for political transition creates the which women in society can flourish and achieve their own goals and objectives. i would say, again, the prospects are not very good if we were to withdraw at the end of 2014 for women. >> i don't think any of us will ever forget the images of the soccer stands -- soccer stadium and the taliban and what they did for women. i think as we look toward be

importance of the commitment in afghanistan, let us not forget , that if you just said we leave and we abandon the work that we've done in afghanistan, we can send women back in those soccer stadiums, and i do not ok.k that is >> i did not provide you a minute ago with my own assessment and isolation. that is the feedback that i have received from the afghan women that i have spoken to, so i am actually voices on -- voicing on concernhalf to their were we to not maintain a presence. >> if we don't maintain a presence, what happens with al qaeda? and also, how quickly would this happen? hear, for example, why does it matter in terms of weree at home if we to withdraw this year, and how

quickly does this all unravel? i think this is important for people to understand that we have made great success, but if we suddenly pull back, what happens? >> senator, thank you. first of all, i think the determination of the afghan forces begins to happen fairly quickly in 2015. that is because, again, where we are today in the campaign is we focused on quality of force, building battalions, building brigades, building courts. those units to sustain themselves. things that would happen almost immediately after we would leave in 2015 is units would fall -- run out of fuel, paid systems would not be completely operable, spare parts would not be available for vehicles, so we start to see a decrease in forcesss in the afghan and obviously their operational reach would be less. we also would not be able to complete our work with the afghan air force.

we are still the process of fielding the afghan air force. with regard to al qaeda, again, my assessment is that the pressure that we put on al qaeda virtually every day in operations by our special operations and cooperation with the afghan partners is what has kept the al qaeda from reconstituting. we know from intelligence that they have every intent of continuing to operate from afghanistan and pakistan. they were to review it is a great victory if we were to withdraw and it would have the space with which to conduct operations against the west. it would be a huge moral factor for al qaeda as a movement were ando withdraw as a region become the vanguard for the al qaeda movement from the region. qaeda vanguard for the al movement and a risk to the united states of america again, correct, general? thinkator, i did not

there is any doubt that there'll be a risk. >> so no doubt it is important that we get this right and one of the things i am encouraged by is all of the presidential candidates asked karzai is gone, with all due respect. he has made a lot of troubling comments that i think all of us disagree with, what he is gone because there is going to be a new election, and all of the candidates that are running have committed to signing the bsa if elected, correct? >> that is correct, senator. >> and how quickly, as long as the runoff goes in august, how announce is it that we our follow-on commitments, that the president do that with regard to the timing of the runoff in august? how if the timing there and important is that cunning in terms of us making a commitment on behalf of our country as to what our follow-on force would be? >> senator, there are several issues. if you do not mind kamali like to touch on all of the very

briefly. to me, the delay in the bsa, part of it is the military campaign, and i mentioned it would be high risk if we do not make a decision by september. you have a high residence and orderly withdrawal and that is simply because of what it takes to get all of the equipment out, all of the people out, and to transfer all of the facilities. we start to run into a situation where there are as many tasks to do as there are days to do that before the 31st of december. that is why i characterize that as high risk. challengek the real with the delay in the bsa and delay inserted the post 2015 bulually starts in ka with the leadership, the afghan people, and the afghan security forces across the country. i think it's also fair to say the curly the uncertainty about what he 15 affects the behavior of regional actors to include pakistan. those nations are hedging, not certain what the facts on the ground will be in 2015. the other issue i am concerned about in terms of how long the

us uncertainty would last would be the willingness and the ability of the coalition to maintain cohesion and actually participate. i think it is reported to point out that the contribution of the coalition has been significant, and iss that a future mission -- it would be very important for us to do the future mission also as a coalition. future mission it is important to do future mission as a coalition. >> i know my time is up but we know karzai is going with the newly elected president is as committed to signing the bsa and i hope our president would make an announcement to give certainty as to what our follow up commitment to would be and make that announcement to insure the afghan people know we are committed to following through and we're going to ensure that afghanistan is

not a safe haven. i hope the president comes forward to give that certainty unleaded is contingent on the bsa to be signed but the president could make that contingent upon that signing. thank you. >> senator? >> general dunford good to see you again i enjoyed our visit in july. i also want to underline points from the opening statement the american role is improving the life as afghans is massive. the more we do that the more we inoculate against sectarianism but it is about creating the afghan security forces also making them understand they don't have to go back to what they had. one thing that i find

staggering the life expectancy has improved from 45 years up at 62. in a country of 30 million people if you could improve life expectancy by 17 years agent in aid decade 500 million years of life for the current afghan population that is a result of the work of the united states and other nations have done. largely done by public health investment that reduce childhood mortality you tell me that axioms like united states? if you can reduce the risk of my children dying young increases life expectancy by 17 years, i will like the united states also. i am not surprised at all that those results are so strong. the do have to explain the be our citizens are not taking that is the investment we should be

making his improvement of life in afghanistan but this is inoculation against extremism. the real life evidence that they can see that will help them not to go backward to the taliban or other extremes for a guy want to associate myself with the comments made early the comprehensive investment through the united states and its partners made a significant difference. i was in bahrain in december and did he is now very public about this i wish we worked out we worked out a bilateral security agreement in iraq. he said we made a mistake by not being willing to work out the bsa with the united states. now we regret it. he has indicated he has said

that directly to a hot lead karzai did not make the mistake that we made in iraq. it is tragic, could have been avoided but for all the good we can do we should not stay if we cannot work out the bilateral security agreement we are not interested to be occupiers but partners i am interested to hear your thoughts about the election these are very important. there will happen in the next three and a half weeks. you have indicated all the presidential candidates support the bilateral security agreement with the united states. i am saying this for the record but this is not like private support we will sign it. they take the position public -- publicly to tell the electorate we want the

united states tuesday to work out the bilateral security agreement? >> correct. this is the first time to have a campaign process. of these would be made in the context of public appearances so it is the public position they would not say that if it did not reflect the electorate. >> erasmus roncesvalles we are but this issue is not a minor little issue. i imagine from the press i have read that suggests continuing u.s. presence is a major piece of the public dialogue and debate into the run up of the elections with the mandate with the continuing relationship.

>> i believe whoever the next president will be to enter into a partnership. >> i know that creates some anxiety with the taliban and just recently have had very public calls that were disrupted to some degree a number of years ago but general dunford you indicate bnsf should be sufficient to protect over significant violence. that is your thought today? >> based on my assessment not only of the afghan performance date today by defense that occurred over the last year. the islamic festival and is

noncallable they lock down the entire city demonstrates the ability of the security force to create a climate that elections can take place. it will not be violence free but it will be high profile and the enemy has a concerted effort to disrupt elections and i am confident they will be unsuccessful to disrupt elections. >> good to hear general. >> senator graham? >> i would like to add my compliments to the chairman for the opening statement i cannot believe you are leaving the senate. when observation is almost empty a few reporters. general i remember when all of these rows were fall into everybody was hanging on every word about afghanistan

i am just here to say as a nation regarding afghanistan is the single most important decision we will in the 21st century to secure our homeland other than the iranian nuclear program i cannot think of a more important decision to how to make a transition but to the members of the committee. no bsa, no troops? >> as correct. >> if we do have the bsa not one troupe will be left behind. we will not put our men and women in that situation but most afghans want us to stay? >> direct. >> maybe when you were telling us that we could construct a the scenario the afghans will help to defend america? >> if you look back at the nation's we helped in the

1990's many are on the ground with us in afghanistan today georgia is one of the examples. >> what is in it for us to be exploring is afghanistan willing to fight the terrorist to help defend our nation and? >> i do agree a partnership. >> if you want to help women in america make sure al qaeda cannot kill us at the homeland is not afghan women it is american men and women so we have a historic opportunity to turn a country that is isolated into an allied to be a front-line defense. do you agree? >> i agree. >> the goal is to keep the enemy away from the homeland to win still up partnership is and that the general goal? >> it is. >> you agree it is essential upon because this is where

it started? >> i do and south asia. >> if you believe this is the place is started we could leave behind a scenario where it ends well it is a cost-benefit analysis have made trips to be had in afghanistan and september 10th. >> nine. >> ambassadors? >> nine. >> tel much money? >> non how much does 9/11 costas in dollars civic billions of dollars. >> so if you look at the cost of the country financially leave them alone they will leave us alone did not work it cost us allah more than to be involved in of the lives lost are heartbreaking these were soldiers that signed up and

willing to defend the nation with 3,000 civilians died in the blink of an eye on the homeland. do you believe if we ignore the threat from the part of the world that the next attack on united states would be greater than 9/11? >> i absolutely believe there will be another attack. greater or not i don't know. >> do you know, the capabilities that are available then they were before? >> yes. he doesn't represent afghanistan what to do regarding the afghan relations. >> the afghan still see us or the british occupiers how many people are in afghanistan? >> between 25 and 30 million

right now there are 33,000 americans. >> talk to 33,000 survive? >> it was a difficult circumstance. >> i would not want to be there. but i am here to tell you if they did not want to speak with me in offense even people suggest the british empire but not in the eyes of the afghans. you have two choices but to go back to pre-9/11 in the cost how much would it cost to maintain 350000 + afghan army compare the benefits you would achieve from that investment. nobody left behind can you

run us through that? >> the cost of the afghan security forces the coalition and partners have committed to pay 1.3 billion approximately 500 million is on the order of $3 billion. that it would be far less than the cost that you outlined. >> so you tell them the cost of leaving is far greater than staying with that configuration? >> correct. >> is unfair to say the national security interest will not be judged in history as the debris left but what we left behind? >> it is how we leave absolutely.

>> you are here to tell us if we are smart we can leave behind a stable country or we can leave behind a disaster that would haunt us for decades? >> thank you. >> general i want to talk sometimes i said don't like a one note chorus about reconstruction efforts and accountability but when i really concerned about no more then 21% of afghanistan would be severe -- and accessible to civilian oversight going forward. that is 47 percent reduction since 2009.

if we have guys and the years on the majority of afghanistan during that time period the billions of dollars of american taxpayer money was spent to build things, we only have 21 percent of the country covered with eyes and ears. do you agree that the ability to oversee any kind of ongoing work is severely curtailed under the current scenario? limit to make you feel better, 2015 from the dod prospective 32 projects on doing. all but five will fall in areas to provide oversight five projects will fall outside that range. real working with the state department to ensure we have afghans to help us provide oversight that we provide

the stewardship the you are addressing. >> i half not see not funding. of those 31 projects you will be working on is there going to be any more monday requested in this upcoming budget? >> senator it will be in 2015 so that is 2015 monies of those projects will be there. the projects are between six and $700 million the last 32 projects that were part of the original record. so they are virtually all either afghan national police or army projects with the backside that was outlined a couple years ago. >> there have been no new projects started this

calendar year? to back there are none that hath been started cover not part of the program. >> but quickly i have asked some of the leadership it is important to get a clearer assessment how well this works there has been the assumption from date number one i have great respect for general petraeus guidance for counter insurgency efforts but i am not aware there has ever been any data or analysis that says that the military getting involved large-scale infrastructure programs works in terms of counter insurgency. certainly it may have helped on the margins of iraq but most of that money was wasted most of these

projects are not operating now they open the water park and it crumbles the notion to build during a conflict me know so many went to the bad guys for that higher labor building in the state department and the defense department i really think we need to do an assessment now with both iraq and afghanistan to look at. if you read the inspector general final report there is some real work to do with the military is there a discussion about that with a real -- reevaluation of the effectiveness? >> i can hear general dempsey's comments the other day. at the end of a decade of war it is fair to say it is very important we look at

lessons learned to document now while they are fresh civic we have problems with property accountability. we know 26 ft. open investigations that include weapons and weapons system with almost $590 million there have been problems found there we try to retrofit the equipment. do you have a handle on that? >> we spent the last year even before i provide to ensure this is part of lessons learned relearned a lot of lessons i believe we are applying those now with the retrograde process. >> i have questions for the record for what has changed

i thought we had really turned the corner by and disappointed the ig would find these problems after what we did learn that i finally went to mention the detainee and understand the government with ties to a tactical coalition forces but they continue to remove dangerous individuals it is very troubling that we should be very worried about and i want you to tell me you are comfortable with men and women in battle to keep them captured in the afghan government does not have the ability to let them go.

>> clearly protecting the of forces is my responsibility and i take as seriously. was greatly concerned with those 65 individuals 2014 will be determined by a number of factors to not only insures those individuals that the afghan forces has kept up also to have access intelligent as to protect the terrorism operations. with the new registration that has to be arranged in a part of the bilateral security agreement. >> we don't have it now? gimmickry have the arrangement but the -- they have not observe the agreement. >> i will now defer.

>> thank you. general thank you for everything you have done their. extraordinary tour of duty with amazing work. everybody at st. michael's is very proud of you and i want to mention i served in the house for a little bet when we were creating enwraps we were not worried whether or not we could get them home or whether the dirt is cleaned off from the tires but saving lives. that was the whole purpose i think if you talk to anybody in the house or the senate at the time if you said we can get these but it you

want to worry about how they come home? we want them taken care of but with a list of 100 things i think number one was telling families in indiana and ohio, the wisconsin, a new york they could be in the safest vehicles possible to come home safely. i just want to say my opinion is the most important job they have had to do they could do it. i want to ask you general with the progress we're making in that area. there is testing of fertilizers to come up with a formula and that is not explosive and i want to hear how things are going out what is the biggest by edie challenges right now. >> 84 the question. as you know, we have worked

very closely with pakistan with the ied office with existential threat to pakistan and agenda earlier the pakistan these are very focused on the ied challenge we had a number of sessions with them there is cooperation. >> one of the bright things we see is the cooperation. >> absolutely. certainly the committee work has great dividends. the greatest ied challenges the afghan forces with the brunt of at and with ever for coups -- focus i feel comfortable the training we have to focus on the ied is to make sure of keas security forces are capable to deal with that challenge than we are in the process

to finally integrate the equipment and capabilities are improving but if the bright spot between the government of afghanistan that we have to worry:this issue. >> what about catching the threat before it happens? we are way up from where we were. >> this is a force protection issue to i would never say we are comfortable. >> no. what is the material of choice? >> we still see ammonia nitrate is still 80 percent of the ied with a homemade explosive. >> thank you for your effort is has torn families and

units apart. like you said we will not be satisfied intel there are no more. we appreciate everything you have done. what happens even if our forces remain behind which obviously we hope we get the bsa but what do those areas look like? >> there is still a safe haven for al qaeda in that region and it has extremist organizations the taliban and the list goes on of individuals that use that area. will largely have kept them from conducting attacks in the area. they expect we will leave at the end of 2014 and they will have the opportunity to expand the safe haven. my expectation is as real growth our partnership with

the afghan security forces and counterterrorism ability then combined with the capability of the afghans to reassure those individuals focus more on their own survival against the afghan people or us. >> after december 2014 for provincial reconstruction teams will they have the ability to put forward efforts with projects and programs where they will feel safe for secure? bennett there will not be any provincial reconstruction teams right now the embassy is participating in discussions their project oversight will be conducted by afghans except where our

forces are with casual evacuation capability and quick response would support usaid and other employees in those areas we don't have coverage my expectation we will not have state department employees. >> they could be in the environment they are safe. >> absolutely. >> thank you again for to have done an extraordinary job under very difficult circumstances the nation owes you a huge debt of gratitude. >> i have seen some disturbing things general that i have been concerned about that the special inspector general at the end

of january your staff was accused of pre-empting i will ask you three questions. how do the personnel get to locations such as construction sites and how do they can access with the afghan industries? >> we provide that support. >> one of the statements i recall is that no more than 20% of afghanistan is accessible to a civilian oversight personnel by the end of 2014. is that true is that true to the mission. >> what is referring to is 21 percent of the country will be covered by u.s.

forces footprint because they reduce the force so but also that percentage is irrelevant because that is where projects are on going there will only be 32 projects from dod perspective all but five will fall within our ability to provide proper oversight. >> we read a lot of these things it appears that they find out things with the high-profile media outlet the commander charged with the military campaign and have they been focused?

>> i welcome any organization during my time so i requested inspectors but we take storage shed very seriously i realize i have a responsibility to the taxpayer with the advancement of our interest but i uninterested in the investigators ability to tell me how to save government many and decisions for the future as opposed to what might have happened to live be important to a future conflict but as a commander i am more interested in decisions i am making today to make sure they are good decisions with good stewardship where investors can help made up of. >> those headlines are accurate?

>> they are sensationalize. >> i think they are to. does that make your job easier? >> makes it more difficult the information age the narrative is important if there is a narrative of pessimism and of abuse and we're not good stewards it affects the mission. >> i agree. identify with the remarks i tried to say that but not nearly as eloquently as senator graham. think you for your great work. >> i really appreciate the stand you talk against president karzai do you think it would be healthful

to send a signal we object to what president carter cited? >> thank you for what you have been doing the last few weeks to send a message. >> let them know economic aid is cut off. could you send the committee report i am sure they are bored out there. [laughter] the key for about hard work give the committee some indication of problems we face so we can make informed decisions. >> this is the ideological struggle there is no state to conquer there is no air force to shoot down and when

i say we is not just as most of the muslim of world is in the battle so what you try to tell us the best way to keep the war away from the homeland is a line of defense places like afghanistan that have a stable government and security forces willing to fight as part of the strategy. >> they thrive bin and governed spaces that is what we're trying to redo. >> i don't know when the war will end over end extremist movements are marginalized better education better the economic opportunity but the biggest blow to the taliban

is going to school and people making their own choices i know that is frustrating but if we don't invest in the people who are willing in their backyard we would be smart afghanistan and under taliban control is devastating. >> that is fair to say. >> in 2001 when be cleaned out the place was a devastated and society absolutely no infrastructure i remember going to call -- it is like myrtle beach today but there are lots of challenges but like afghanistan where we started and where we're out at today. would you agree it is amazing they have come as far as they have?

>> just a few years ago we described in 2014 very few people believed we would be there we are today. >> i would be among those. what they have not done or how far they have come or what they're capable i believe the capability is fairly of limited with reforming afghanistan. do you agree with that proposition and? >> given the opportunity. >> the key ingredient is well and incisor -- desire in they want to move out of the darkness and into the light. >> absolutely reflecting the popularity rating of the taliban between 11 and 15% of those actually support taliban ideology. we don't have the al qaeda call but i think it would be

much lower. >> that case of the whole is that most people do not want to go back to the dark days they want to go forward it is not like america it is not jeffersonian democracy but they can be representative government and they can be a good allies. >> i believe that. >> from the american people point to view trying to build a consensus abroad to let with minimum of help from us because the goal is not to control afghanistan and the to drive us out of the region and? but that is the plant. >> to drive us out to leave that in their hands with that economic chaos is unimaginable. do you agree? >> from the economic perspective the debt is states has a great interest to make sure that part of the world is stable. >> you could make that

argument very easily. >> if you want to deterred the iranians if we abandoned afghanistan that is the worst possible signal about our resolve regarding national security matters and they will be one of the biggest winners. >> i believe saw. >> thank you do you believe we are within the 10-yard line? >> we are within the end zone if we don't call the wrong play. >> senator levin will be back shortly so we will stand down and tell he gets back. [inaudible conversations] cpac i am not sure any of my

colleagues are coming back i just have a couple of additional questions then i hope the staff is aware if senators are coming back so i think we can end promptly. i talk to you in my office about a couple of incidents that occurred fairly recently i think it is important when these incidents happen it is truly tragic to have a prompt response on the part of the military. that radio station raid in the province allegedly the special ops forces scaled though walls of the camp -- compound seized the owner than threatened him during interrogation. what can you tell us about

that raid? >> it is under investigation. i prefer not to talk about it publicly but i read the draft last night after reese spoke with the initial results from the commander and special operations commander seoul sometime over the next couple days we will have the facts. that is on the radio station in. >> there was also friendly fire in eastern afghanistan that nato airstrike can you tell us about that incident it was ever in the shipping capability again the investigation is not complete so i cannot speak

publicly but we will have the facts in a couple of days. in all honesty it is something that happened that should not have happened is we're working with the afghans on that to remedy to the extent we can. >> very closely and to take care of the families involved. >> general, i had a chance to ears chat with the number of my colleagues they all reacted the way i do to your service in testimony is compelling your service is extraordinary. we all feel that way in and thank you and your family.

i go we had some opportunities maybe you can find the few hours with your family away from your challenges in the afghanistan but we are deeply grateful to you and all the men and women with whom you serve. with that we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> a couple of live events a day but today on her companion network, c-span3. the senate banking committee holds a hearing. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 1:30 p.m., secretary of state john kerry is scheduled to testify about his department's budget before the house foreign affairs committee, and you can participate be a facebook and twitter, #c-spanchat. >> while this invasion continues, we and the other nations of the world cannot conduct business as usual with

the soviet union. that is why the united states has imposed stiff economic penalties on the soviet union. i will not issue any permits for soviet ships to fish in the coastal waters of the united states. i cut the soviet access to high technology equipment and agricultural products. i have limited other commerce with the soviet union, and i have asked our allies and friends to join with us on restraining their own trade for the soviets and not to replace our own embargoed items, and i have notified the olympic sovietee that with invading forces in afghanistan, neither the american people nor i will support sending an olympic team to moscow. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor covered on our facebook age. america'seated by

cable industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. >> in a few moments, a look at today's headlines, plus your calls and tweets live on "washington journal." forthe house is in session general speeches at 10:00 eastern. today's agenda includes more work on a bill regarding the enforcement of federal law. and in about 45 minutes, we will be joined by republican representative vicky hartzler of missouri, a member of the budget non-services committee, to look at the defense budget. at 8:38 -- eastern, we will discuss russia's intervention in ukraine with representative marcia kaptur. later, "new york times " correspondent michael schmidt will take your questions.

"washington journal" is next and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: good morning. welcome to "washington journal." john kerry expected to appear before the house foreign affairs committee. look for coverage on c-span 3 at 1:30. he will fly to london to meet with his russian counterpart for last-ditch attempt at a diplomatic solution. yesterday, president obama's meeting with ukraine's interim prime minister in washington warned russia of a cost of the country continues to intervene in ukraine. we will begin there this morning with your thoughts.