why that is the case and can that translate to a support of the government of afghanistan. there are situations where armies might have security forces but it does not translate. >> we began to see the change back in june. we celebrated what was known as milestone 2013, that is when the afghan security forces assumed the lead. i can remember one confrontation -- one conversation i had with the afghan security forces member. during that ceremony he leaned over to me almost with tears in his eyes. he said, you have no idea what it means to be responsible for the security of your own country. i want to thank you and the american people for making this possible. we have seen through the summer

their young men and women providing security, increasing pride. we laid out a campaign objective and we wanted to be emerge with competent afghan forces. but as importantly credible in the eyes of the afghan people. the polling data shows that we are consistently over 80% -- shows that consist way over 80% of people have confidence in the afghan security forces. we had a pretty sad incident take place where 21 afghan forces were killed. that negative was turned into a positive in the wake of that event. the outpouring of pride and support for afghan forces, the desire to take care of the families of the fallen, the outrage the afghan people have felt was actually a great indicator of the developing nationalism inside of afghanistan, the pride the afghan people have their

-- in their country, but more importantly the pride in the afghan forces. that has clearly had a positive affect on the forces themselves. if the people are proud of them and what they do and they appreciate and recognize what they do and the sacrifice they make, they are more encouraged to actually do that. there are a lot of things we can point to physically in terms of afghan development. we can look at helicopters, mobile strength vehicles, weapons systems, tactics, techniques, and procedures. all those things are positive. the human factors are as important. it is a sense of pride, sense of responsibility, sense of accountability. what the afghan people are seeing is a sense of ownership of the forces. interestingly enough, about 80% of the afghan people have confidence the afghan government is set in the right direction and 52% believe things over the last year have improved.

>> my time is all but expired. if you could indicate to us if there is a bsa concluded to the atisfaction of both sides. very brief answer, and we will take that for the record. >> i'd like to take that for the record. >> thank you very much. >> general, i thank you for your service. a great source of pride is your service and that of your predecessors in afghanistan and iraq. we appreciate your incredible service. we have heard from several officials from the department attempting to characterize the status of al qaeda and

afghanistan, region and worldwide. how would you describe al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan? >> because of our special operations and the pressure we have put in the network over the last few years, i would characterize al qaeda and afghanistan as in survival mode. >> general allen said he would need 20,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan after 2014. now as i understand it we have 10,000 plus a few nato troops. can you state how many troops we need and for how long? >> i am comfortable with that range we talked about earlier in terms of the nato, 8000 to 12,000. that would be a u.s. mission only. i think what is important when

we start to talk about numbers is what we expect those forces to do as the afghan forces have increased their capability. what we will be doing in 2015 largely is addressing the self sustainability of the afghan forces. they will clearly be the lead in the fight and the only operations i would envision us conducting in 2015 is counter terrorism operations. >> your view is it would be 10,000 plus several thousand nato troops? >> i'm confident 8000 to 12,000 nato mission plus account of net cash plus account counterterrorist mission on top of that. >> according to a wall street journal report, a senior pentagon official stated that a new plan was start with 10,000 american troops at the beginning of 2015 but the number would decline sharply under a two-year drawdown schedule. the number would be close to

zero by the time mr. obama leaves office in early 2017. does this course of action entails a level of risk to our mission that you would find acceptable? >> we provide the president with a range of options. their conditions that would to be met over time and the risk of -- and the risk associated with not beating those conditions. >> would you say it is very high risk if we had a sharp decline -- a sharply under two-year drawdown schedule so it would be close to zero by the time mr. obama leaves office in early 2017? >> that would depend on the progress of the afghan security forces. >> you are not willing to state whether it would be an increased risk or not? >> it would be increased risks. >> thank you. i can only speak for myself but if that is the plan, that we

would be close to zero by the time mr. obama leaves office in early 2017, i would not support remaining troops -- keeping remaining troops behind. it would be a needless risk of american lives. we all know that you cannot deal any further with president karzai on the bsa? >> i think that is fair to say. >> we also know all the presidential candidates in favor of the bsa and said they would sign it. >> all the candidates do and the overwhelming majority of the afghan people supported. >> and you are teachable and ready to make plans for the signing of that bsa sometime after the presidential election. you are capable of adjusting to that eventuality? >> absolutely.

>> it would be much harder if there was a runoff? >> if we have a new president by august i am comfortable we will be able to maintain the options throughout that time without any difficulty. >> it's very disturbing to hear the president say the longer karzai waits the lower the number of troops will be. i don't get that connection. why would karzai's intransigence dictate the number of troops and missions that we would want as part of the residual force. >> senator, i can't talk to that. >> i'm sure you can. are we able to get out all of the equipment we need to get out of afghanistan on schedule? >> i am absolutely confident we will be able to do that. >> even if the russians cut off one of the avenues? >> yes, senator. due to great efforts we have resilience in a system and i am

not concerned at all about a loss of northern distribution from the russian piece of that. >> are you confident with the level left behind that the 10000 and some nato forces that the afghan military will have capabilities such as air evacuation, close air support, and especially intelligence capabilities? >> two of the things you mentioned are gaps that will exist in 2015. the afghan air force will not fully be developed, the intelligence enterprise will not fully be developed. their special operations keep ability will not be fully developed and we will still have gaps in the ministerial capacity. those are the main areas we are focused on in 2015. >> in your view, if we left afghanistan with no residual force we could see a replay of the iraq scenario?

>> if we leave at the end of 2014, the afghan security forces will begin to deteriorate. the security environment will begin to deteriorate and i think the only debate is the pace of that deterioration. >> i thank you, general. you're in a long line of outstanding leaders and all of us are very proud of the service that you have rendered and continue to render to our country. i thank you. >> >> thank you. your service, we are very appreciative of that. this war has defined a whole generation of americans and we have reached a decision point in the conflict. we owe the american people a lot of explanations. senator mccain was talking about the transitions going on. we talk about the amount of time you would need if there was a

new elected president going in different directions. it doesn't look like karzai is going to release this whatsoever, building his castle or mansion or fortress for him. he remains a force for a long time. i don't see how anything would ever change knowing his intentions and being telegraphed as well as they are. do you acknowledge that? >> i acknowledge karzai's intent to remain influential in afghanistan. i also look at all of the candidates who have very publicly articulated the need for u.s. coalition presence after 2014. i'm even more encouraged by my day-to-day with the afghan people and the polling we have done where 80% of the afghan people recognize that their future is inextricably linked to the presence of coalition of u.s. forces. >> i am just saying appearance has russian putin all over it with karzai in afghanistan.

>> that may or may not be president karzai's intent. i'm not sure that reflects his capability. >> let me speak to this. i've been very critical about the amount of contracts we have. i understand we have 78,000 contractors in afghanistan and only 33,000 troops. >> senator, the number of contractors also support the nato forces of about 45,000 total forces. >> can you tell me that contracting with those forces would be reduced? relative to the other forces? >> we would be reduced in the process and reducing contractors. >> for the life of me -- i am understanding about 2000 and arrests over there at $2 million per piece, $20 million worth of emirates? >> are you referring to the ones we have declared excess? >> it is hard for me to go home

and explain to them how we can build something that cost that much, take it over there and discard it like it wasn't of any value at all. it has to be valued somewhere. >> we have 2000 that the service has declared as excess. >> what will happen with those? >> we are in the process of seeing if there are any of our allies that can use those vehicles. services are also going back to review those requirements. either put a stop on any destruction of vehicles except those that are ballot that i've put a stop on the destruction of any of those vehicles except those that are battle damage. they have to accept them as is where is.

it is very expensive for countries to take those vehicles from afghanistan. it cost us less than 10,000 to destroy the vehicle. it would cost us over $50,000 to move a vehicle to another location. in order for us to give it to somebody else we would have to invest a significant amount of money. >> if we are drawn into another conflict we have to spend another $1 million to replace it. >> services have identified the requirements they will need for future combat. >> can you honestly tell the american people -- do you tell the people in west virginia we should be in afghanistan, we are on purpose to do that. our mission was to find al qaeda. we are a very hockey state. we like a good fight. this one makes no sense to anyone in west virginia at all. >> i would assess that if we don't stay there and continue to

train afghan forces, we will actually have a good fight. >> what are the casualties right now? between green on blue? >> we have 14 incidents of insider attacks during 2014. we have 48 in 2012. >> i went to a wounded warrior dinner. i talked to a young man. i thought he was one of the support staff. he was very distant. when i started talking to him he began to engage more. his story tore me apart. he said he was shot but the -- by the person he trained for six months. they live in constant fear and you're saying -- i don't think we will ever get that mentality. i have all the respect in the world but i don't know how we answer these. >> when i look at where we were in 2009, there were 10 of us to one member of the afghan security forces.

the ratio is completely adverse and with a small presence we have today and continue to have after 2015, we are going to ensure that the investment we made in the past 12 years results in us achieving our objectives of a stable and unified afghanistan. >> are we to tell the american people that we will have to maintain a constant presence for perpetuity as we have done in korea? is this what afghanistan is turning into? >> i would assess that to be the case. >> you think there's a time we can't exit? >> i absolutely do. >> and i'm saying 13 years have not done the job. how many more years will attack to take? if you can't do the job in 13 years you can't get the job done. >> i would assume the united states would be engaged in a

region for a long time to come. the nature of our engagement and presence would force change over time. >> thank you so much for your service. i would respectfully disagree. >> thank you. >> general, thank you for your service. mr. chairman, thank you for your service. it's not hard to understand how my friend from west virginia could have the view that he has. i must say i disagree most vigorously with the point of view that he has just set forth. i think it is remarkable and i hope people listening today -- in the united states and on capitol hill and afghanistan and pakistan and any place where we have interest, i hope people are

listening to the chairman of this committee, who i think made a profoundly remarkable opening statement. i'd say to my colleagues there's is a frustration on the part of the chairman. the american people haven't been given a balanced view of the success we have in afghanistan and a balanced view about the american interest that we will continue to have regardless of the decision of this administration. the chairman regrets that a plurality of americans believe that sending our forces to afghanistan was a mistake. general, i don't think we should forget what happened in 2001.

we went to afghanistan by a virtually unanimous vote of this congress. i was in the house of representatives at the time. there was one dissenting vote. as far as i know, it was unanimous here in the senate. i am not going to say that every decision that has been made since we went in in 2013 -- since we went in in 2002 has been correct. there was a public opinion poll in afghanistan showing the large majority of afghans believes conditions of country have improved over the last decade while the american people are not being given the entire picture of the success story. the afghan people see it on the ground. i think that is reflected by the vote. tell me is it some sort of elite

group that represents only a section of the country or is it a cross-section? enlighten and the committee about how many factions and tribes and ethnic groups were represented. >> it was over 2000 participants from all of the 34 provinces in afghanistan. all of the tribes were represented. i think it was fair to say there was a representative sample of afghanistan leadership. >> what was their view about the importance of continued american participation and involvement in the stability of this region after this election?

>> it is representative of the sentiment of the afghan people. the polling we have done supports the bilateral security. another thing i would also like to say is just 10 days ago i met with nine members of the afghan parliament. basically the oversight committees of the afghan security forces. i asked what message i should come back and deliver. all of them overwhelmingly said don't let one individual speaker afghanistan. -- 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. >> it is not the view of the polling that the united states has invaded this country or the united states of america wants to occupy afghanistan over the long haul.

that is not their view, is it? >> we certainly have no intention of doing that. >> i believe you mentioned in your testimony that this is the feeling of afghan government officials, civil leaders, and that there is a growing appreciation of the coalition's efforts. correct? >> correct. >> i wish this message would get out. our distinguished chairman said on the second page of his

testimony -- unfortunately the american people rarely read about -- it is exclusively a negative incident, depriving the american people of a sense of accomplishment they would receive if they were given a balanced view. i appreciate you being here today and it may be incumbent on us as americans to say the troops that have sacrificed -- the american taxpayers that have sacrificed over more than a decade have resulted in tangible positive accomplishments for the people in this region and also affects the american interest in a positive way. i just hope we don't lose our resolve. we can decide as a body of politics to lose this war nonetheless. we can do it if we try. we are at the point of having a success.

if we don't send to the afghan people a signal that we are once again going to look another way and get interested in something else. we could have an historic partnership that will be missed . the united states still looking out for us national interests, but doing it as you so successfully have done, general, turning this fight over to the locals. having us there as partners, sending a signal that we are not going to forget about them. thank you for indulging me. thank you for your profound statement, which tells the truth to the american people about the success of our troops in this area. >> thank you very much.

>> i can't imagine the press ever focusing on negative controversy. thank you for being here, for your service to the country. one of the things that have impressed me on the trips i have made to afghanistan has been the close relationship between what happens in afghanistan and what happens in pakistan. i wonder if you could assess the kind of role you think pakistan can play post 2014. if you could also speak to the

efforts in pakistan to engage in talks with the taliban and what is happening with that. >> thank you for the question. i find it difficult to envision success in the region without cooperation of pakistan and without an effective relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. i have been encouraged on a couple of fronts. i believe pakistan also recognizes the existential threat of extremism to their own security. the heads of state have met four times, which is very positive. it hasn't happened in quite some time. new resolve has come to improve the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. the two areas they have identified for cooperation are important to point out.

one is to have a common definition of extremism. another is addressing the political issues, economic issues, and security issues between the two countries. our role is to work on a constructive military to military relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. i have met with the new army chief of staff. he has indicated strong resolve to improve the relationship between the afghan security forces and pakistani army. he will spend a lot of time over the next several months doing that. one of the things we want to accomplish by the end of the year is have a constructive bilateral relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. it is actually trilateral. we play an important facilitating role. certainly maintain an effective relationships between both

countries but play less of a role in the important relationship between those two countries. >> can you speak to efforts to engage in talks with taliban on the part of afghanistan. >> we are watching that very carefully. to be honest we don't have any insight into their status. we have seen continued violence. we have also seen some limited military operations against the ttp. what we know is what you know. the leadership in pakistan is committed to try to find some peaceful resolution. that is certainly in pakistan as well as afghanistan. what needs to happen, it is not clear to me today. it is clear they are working to that end. >> we had a few minutes to chat

before the hearing started and one of the things you commented on were the number of women who have been -- who are volunteering and signing up to help with elections in april. for the first time since the afghan security forces fund was established, money was asked for therized recruitment and retention of women in the afghan security forces. obviously that is a separate issue from the election and it speaks to the empowerment of women in afghanistan. i wonder if you could talk about how that dedication of that fund helps assist with recruiting women and keeping them in their services in afghanistan will work and whether we are seeing any of the benefits of that yet. >> thank you for that question.

it is clearly a very difficult issue. there is a strong cultural bias against women participating in security forces and army or police. there is a stated goal of 10% and we are at about one percent. there are some signs of progress. we recently saw the first woman appointed as police chief in afghanistan and there's a second in line to become a police chief. there are some general officers. there are some role models coming up. in the case of these 13,000, it is interesting. that in itself was difficult. the minister plans to use these 13,000 as a whole from which to recruit police woman. he gets women that identify themselves as willing to step up and do something as important as

be a volunteer at the elections. he also recognizes that is an eligible pool of women who would probably make good police woman and he plans to use that. he has a stated goal of increasing the number of policewomen in afghanistan by about 5000 in the next 24 months and 10,000 by 2017. my sense is that the cultural challenges that exist is very real and it will take some time for that to happen. if you look at the prospects for women participation, it is certainly much higher than two or three years ago. >> if i could just make a follow-up comment, to the extent that we can encourage that sentiment to continue as we look at the new administration taking over in afghanistan, certainly that is something all of us here support. >> thank you, senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to thank you for your steadfast leadership in such an important time. i know all of us admire your leadership and your service to our country. i want to thank you for the sacrifice your family has been making during your service in afghanistan. i want to ask you -- if we were to withdraw from afghanistan this year, what happens to the women in afghanistan? >> i think the plight of women would be pretty dire if we were to withdraw at the end of 2014. we are actually providing -- i think the support we provided in security, it actually creates the climate in which the other

women and members of the society actually can flourish and achieve their own goals and objectives. i would say the prospects are not very good. >> i don't think any of us will ever forget the images of what they did to women. i think as we look toward the importance of our commitment in afghanistan, let us not forget what you just said, that if we leave and if we abandon the work we have done in afghanistan that we could send women back into those soccer stadiums. i don't think that is acceptable to any of us. >> i did not provide you with my own assessment. this is the feedback i have received from the afghan women i have spoken to. i am actually voicing on their behalf. their concerns about 2015 and

beyond were we not to remain a presence. >> if we don't maintain a presence, what happens with al qaeda? i would ask you how quickly with this happen? when i hear why does it matter in terms of people, what happens with al qaeda and how quickly does this all unravel? i think this is important to understand that we made great success but what happens and how quickly? >> first of all, i think the deterioration of the afghan forces begins to happen fairly quickly in 2014. where we are today in the campaign is we focused on the quality of the force, building the tie-ins, building brigades, which now our focus is building the process allowing those tactical units to sustain themselves. things that happen immediately after leaving 2015 is units

would run out of fuel, spare parts would not be available. we are starting to see decreased readiness in the afghan security forces. obviously their operational reach would be less. we also would not be able to complete our work with the afghan air force. we are in the process of actually fielding the afghan air force. with regard to al qaeda. my assessment is the pressure we put on al qaeda virtually every day for special operations in cooperation with the afghan partners is what has kept the al qaeda from reconstituting. they have every intent to keep operating in afghanistan and pakistan. they would view it as a great victory.

you'd then have the space to conduct operations. i think it's not only would be a physical reconstitution but a huge moral factor for al qaeda as a movement were we to withdraw from the region in 2015 and allow them to want again stepless preeminence in the region and become the vanguard for the al qaeda movement. >> the vanguard for the al qaeda movement and risk to the united states of america. >> i don't think there's any question there would be a risk to western interest. >> no doubt it is so important we get this right. one of the things i have been encouraged by is all the presidential candidates, karzai is gone. he has made a lot of troubling comments. he is gone. all of the candidates running have committed to signing the bsa, correct? >> correct. >> how quickly -- how important is it that we announce our follow-on commitment, that the

president do that with regard to the timing of the runoff in august? what's the timing there and how important is that timing in terms of us making a commitment on behalf of our country as what our follow-on force would be? >> this is several issues. i would like to touch upon the very briefly. the delay in the bsa, part of it is the military campaign. i mentioned it begins to be high risk if we don't make a decision by september. we have a high risk against orderly withdrawal. that is because of how long it takes to get all the equipment out and transfer all the facilities. we start to run into a situation where there are as many tasks to do as there are days to do those before the 31st of december. that is why i characterize that as high risk. i think the real challenge post 2015 actually starts in kabul with the leadership of the afghan people and afghan security forces across the country. i think it is also fair to say

the uncertainty of 2015 affects the behavior of regional actors to include at -- to include pakistan. those nations are hedging what the facts on the ground will be in 2015. the other issue i'm concerned about would be the willingness of the coalition to maintain cohesion and actually participate. i think it is important to point out the contribution of the coalition has been significant and i assess a future mission would be important for us to do. >> i know my time is up but i would say this. i would hope that our president would make an announcement to give certainty to the situation in afghanistan as to what our

follow-up commitment will be and to make that announcement and ensure that the afghan people know that we are committed to following through here. and we're going to ensure that afghanistan does not become a safe haven for al qaeda. i hope the president will come forward and give that certainty. i understand and respect that is contingent on the dsa been signed. i believe the president can make that contingent on that signing. >> thank you. >> good to see you again. i enjoyed our visit in july. i appreciate your service. i echo the comments senator mccain made. i also want to underline points made by the chairman in his opening statement. improving the life of afghanistan has been tremendous. the more we do that the more we inoculate against extremism.

the mission is about training the afghan security forces but it is also about making afghans understand they do not have to go back to what they have. one bit of evidence i find staggering, since the taliban fell the life expectancy in afghanistan has improved from 45 years to 62 years. in a country of 30 million people, if you can improve life expectancy by 17 years in a decade. that is millions of years of life that have been the result of the work the united nations and united states has done. it has been done largely by public health investments that has reduced child mortality. you're telling me the polling suggests that afghans like the united states. if you can reduce the risk of my children dying young and increase life expectancy in my country by 17 years.

i'm going to like the partnership, too. i think we do have to explain that maybe our citizens aren't thinking that the investment we should be making should be about the improvement of life expectancy in afghanistan but this is inoculation against extremist. this is the real-life tangible evidence that afghans can see that will help them not fall backward into the taliban and or other extremists. i want to associate myself with the comments made earlier. the comprehensive nature of the investment be by the united states made a difference. i met with the foreign minister -- the foreign minister of iraq. he is now very public about this. i wish we had worked out a bilateral security agreement.

he says this publicly. he says we made a mistake. -- he made a mistake by not willing to work out a bsa with the united states. he said that directly to hamid karzai, to not make the mistake we made in iraq. we shouldn't stay unwanted. we are not interested in being occupiers. we are interested in being partners. i am happy to hear your testimony that the afghan people want us to be partners. it is the 12th of march. elections are going to happen in the next 3.5 weeks. you have indicated all the presidential candidates support a bilateral security agreement with the united states. this isn't like private support

where they said we will sign a bilateral security. they are taken this position publicly in the midst of an election campaign and telling their voters, their electorate. we want the united states to stay. isn't that correct? >> this is the very first time they have had a very public campaign process to include televised dates. public appearances include -- it is absolutely their public position. clearly they would not be saying that if it didn't reflect the electorate. >> i am sure they're as responsive to the electorate as we are. this is not a minor issue in the presidential campaign. i imagine it suggests that the continuing u.s. presence is a major piece of the public debate.

therefore the result of the elections will be a mandate. >> i believe whoever the next president of afghanistan will be, he will come in the office with a mandate. >> that creates a real anxiety in the taliban. those elections were disrupted to some degree. you indicate that you believe the increased size of security forces should be sufficient to protect against significant violence marring the selections. -- these elections. that is your thought today?

>> it's based on our assessment -- the major events that have occurred in afghanistan where the enemy has a demonstrated intent to disrupt those events, the islamic festival really demonstrated to me the ability of the afghan security forces to create a climate in which elections can take place. i am not saying it will be violence free. there will be high-profile attacks and we will have a -- the enemy will have a concerted effort to disrupt the elections. i am confident they will be unsuccessful. >> that is good to hear. thank you very much. >> i just can't believe you are leaving the senate. one observation, the room is almost empty.

we have a few reporters, thank you for coming. i remember when these rows were full. i am just here to say the decision we are about to make as a nation regarding afghanistan is probably the single most important decision we'll make in the 21st-century in securing our homeland, other than the uranium program. i can't think of a more important decision than how we transition in afghanistan. there may not be a lot of interest in the room. thank you though. no bsa, no troops? >> correct. >> >> to the afghan people, if we don't have a bilateral security agreement, not one trip -- troop will be left behind. we are not going to put our young men and women in that

situation. the good news is most afghans want us to stay. >> correct, sir. >> maybe what you are telling us come if we are smart and and this well we can construct a scenario where afghans will help. >> if you look back at the nations we helped in the 1990's many of them were on the ground with us. >> what is in it for us is a fair proposition for us to be exploring. what's in it for us would be an afghanistan willing to fight the terrorists and defending our nation from an attack. >> i agree. the fight against terrorism is absolutely what we are trying to -- >> you want to help women in america make sure al qaeda can't kill a bunch of us here -- >> correct. >> this isn't about afghan women, this is about american

women, about american men. it can be a frontline defense against al qaeda, do you agree? >> i agree. >> the goal is to keep the enemy away from the homeland and build partnerships. isn't that the general goal? >> i agree. >> would you agree that afghanistan -- this is where it all started. >> i do. >> do you believe this is the place it all started and we can leave behind a scenario where it ends well. the question is the cost-benefit analysis. before 9/11, on september 10, 2001, how many troops did we have an afghanistan? >> no troops. >> coming ambassadors? >> we did not have an ambassador . >> how much money -- >> not much money. >> how much did 9/11 cost us in terms of dollars? >> billions of dollars. >> if you look at the cost of the country in terms of financial cost, going to the

model of leave them alone and leave us alone -- it costs us a lot more to ignore afghanistan than it has to be involved. the 6000 lives lost in afghanistan and iraq are heartbreaking. these were soldiers that signed up and were willing to defend the nation. 3000 civilians died in the blink of an eye. do you believe if we ignore the threats coming from that part of the world that the next attack on the united states would be greater than it was on 9/11? >> i absolutely believe there will be another attack. whether it be greater or not, i don't know. >> do you agree with me the capabilities that are beginning to be available to terrorist organizations are greater than they were before 9/11? >> yes, sir. >> karzai is an outlier. let's leave it at that. he happens to be president but he doesn't represent afghanistan's view of what to do

regarding u.s.-afghan relations. is that a fair statement? >> it is. >> the afghans don't see us as occupiers because -- how many people are in afghanistan? >> 30 million. >> how many of there are us? >> 33,000 americans. >> how long can they survive if 30 million saw us as an occupier? >> it would be a difficult circumstance. >> it would be. i would not want to be there. the point is you have green on blue. if they didn't want us, we wouldn't be there. it offends me when people suggest that we are the british empire a long time ago or the russians. you have two choices. one choices to go back to the pre-9/11, nobody there, no money there. how much would it cost the american taxpayer to maintain a

350,000 plus afghan army, how much would it cost to maintain 12,000 troops, compare the benefit we would achieve from that investment versus leaving, nobody left behind, and see where the smart play is. >> the cost of afghan security forces at about 352,000 in 2015 would be $5 billion. our coalition partners have committed to pay $1.3 billion of that. afghanistan will play $500 million. the cost to the u.s., it would be in the order of $300 million. we are still working the figures for our actual presence overall. it is certainly far less than the cost you just outlined. >> you put that in one pocket. -- buecket. -- bucket. the other cost is the cost of leaving. is that correct? >> absolutely. >> final thought. is it fair to say our national security interests are not going

to be judged in history by the day we left afghanistan by what - but by what we left behind? >> i think it is how we leave, not when we leave. >> it is how we leave and what we leave behind. and you are going to tell us if we are smart and we do this by conditions-based withdrawal. we can leave behind a disabled country that can help the fed american homelands or we can leave behind a disaster that will heart -- that will harm us for decades. >> thank you. >> thank you, general for being here today. i want to talk a little bit -- i know i sound like a one note chorus here -- about reconstruction efforts and accountability for that money.

what i'm really concerned about, in the coming months -- what i am concerned about in the coming months is it hasn't been that it has been indicated that no more than 21% of afghanistan will be accessible to civilian oversight going forward. that is a 47% reduction since 2009. we had eyes and ears on majority of afghanistan when hundreds of billions of dollars was being spent to build things. we are only going to have eyes and ears in 21% of the country now. do you agree with that assessment, that our ability to oversee any kind of ongoing work is going to be severely curtailed or limited under the current scenario? >> i may be able to make you feel better about that. in 2015 -- i will speak from the d.o.d. perspective -- we will have 32 projects. all but five of those projects will have proper oversight.

the five projects will fall outside of that range, and we are working to ensure that we have afghans that can help us provide oversight and provide the stewardship that you are addressing. >> well, i have not seen -- none of us have seen the oco funding. of those 31 projects you are going to be working on in 2015, is there going to be more money requested for any of that work in this coming oco budget? >> senator, it will be in 2015. some of that is 2015 money. yes, part of that project will be there. the projects in total are somewhere between $600 million and $700 million. when i talk about projects, they are virtually all either afghan

national police or projects, the back side of the record that was started years ago. >> so no new projects starting this year? >> there are no new starts. >> before i move on, i have asked some of the leadership -- i think it is really important that we get a clear-eyed assessment of how well this works. there has just been an assumption from day one, and i have great respect for general petraeus' guidance in the counterinsurgency effort, but i am not aware there has ever been any data or analysis that has really said that the military

getting involved in large-scale infrastructure projects works. it certainly -- it may have helped along the margins in iraq, but most of that money was wasted. most of those projects are not operating now. the health care centers never opened, the water park is in crumbles, a lot was blown up during the process. the notion of building major infrastructure during a conflict and the security challenges we have -- and we know some of our money went to the bad guys for guarding that one highway we were building -- and the blurring of the lines between the state department, defense apartment as to whose job this is, i think we really need to do a clear-eyed assessment, now that we have both direct and -- iraq and afghanistan to look at. i am hopeful. if you read the special inspector general for iraq's final report, there is real work to do here on the part of the military. is there some discussion about that, that there will be a reevaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy?

>> i heard general dempsey's comments the other day and i associate myself with those. at the end of a decade of war, it is important we look back at the lessons learned and make sure we document those now while they are fresh. >> ok. we have some problems with property accountability in afghanistan. we know that we have 26 open investigations for missing property that include weapons and weapons systems for total of almost $590 million. these problems have been found over there and in two places we are trying to retrofit and account for the equipment. have you gotten a handle on that? >> i do. we have spent the last year and before i arrived trying to ensure that this is part of lessons learned from the iraq experience as we go through the redeployment in iraq. we learned a lot of lessons.

i believe we are applying those lessons in afghanistan now. >> i have specific questions for the record about what has changed since the i.g. took a look. it is worrisome to me that they did the same thing as in our iraq, and i thought that we had turned the corner and that the i.g. had found these problems in iraq. i want to mention detainees. i understand the afghan government released individuals with ties to attacks to coalition forces. there is a bsa, naval, armed forces, to remove individuals that are dangerous from the battlefield. it is troubling that they have released those people. it is something we should be worried about. i want you to tell me that you're comfortable that if you

catch people that are trying to kill our men and women in battle that we can keep them captured and that the afghan government does not have the ability to let them go. >> i share your concern with that, and clearly protecting the force is my responsibility, and i take that very seriously. i was greatly concerned with the release of those 65 individuals. i would say the viability of our presence post-2014 is going to be determined by a number of factors, one of which will be an effective regime to address detainees, not only to ensure that those individuals that are threatening the forces are kept off the battle, but that we have access to intelligence on individuals and conduct effective counterterrorism operations. with the new administration, that is something that has to be arranged and be part of the bilateral security agreement, and the other arrangements that we have with the next government. >> we do not have it now? >> we have an arrangement, but the governor of afghanistan did

not recognize that agreement. >> very disappointing. senator levin had to leave, and i am now going to go to senator donnelly. >> thank you, madam chair, and, general, first i want to thank you for everything you have done there. it has been an extraordinary tour of duty. as i mentioned to you before, i have family members who have a history with st. michael's, and everybody is proud of what you have done. in regard to the -- i served in the house for a little bit, too, and when we were coming and creating mraps and try to get those in the field as fast as we could, we were not worried about whether or not we were going to be able to get them home or what should they were going to get home on or whether the dirt was going to be cleaned up from under the tires. we were worried about saving lives, and that is the whole

purpose of the mraps. if you talk to anybody in the house or senate at that time, and you had said, look, we can get these, but do you want to worry about how they come home? we all want to get them taken care of, but that and a list of about of a hundred things, about 101, and number one was telling families in indiana and ohio and wisconsin and new york that their sons and daughters would be in the safest vehicles possible and that they could come home safely. i want to tell you that my opinion is get them back, if you can come up with the most important job they have had to do they have been doing. i want to ask you about ied's and the progress we're making in that area. i know there has been testing on fertilizers as well. we are trying to come up with a formula that is non-explosive. i wanted to hear how things are

going with regard to fertilizer-based ied's and the challenges you have now and how we're doing in that area. >> thanks for that question. as you know, we work very closely with pakistan, particularly, and they have done a lot of great work. the pakistanis are focused on the ied challenge, as well as are afghans. we have had a number of sessions with cooperation of the producers of -- >> one of the bright things that we see, the cooperation on this, and we are going to be doing testing in the states as well. >> absolutely, and the efforts of the committee has paid evidence. the greatest ied challenge is the afghan forces, who have increasingly borne the brunt of that. our focus, one i feel comfortable with equipment that we have in training for our

focus, our focus on ied's now is to make sure that the afghan security forces are capable of dealing with challenge, and we are in the process of dealing with that equipment, integrating that equipment, and the real bright spot and the potential for improvement here in the coming months is that cooperation between the government of pakistan and the government of afghanistan and the tripartite arrangement that we have on this particular issue. >> how are we doing in terms of catching the threat before it happens, being able to protect our vehicles on the roads? we are way up from where we were. >> we have made significant improvement. this is one of those force protection issues that i have never appeared before a committee to tell you i where we are. >> not until they are all gone. what is the material of choice not that the terrorists are using? >> we see ammonium nitrate as being 68% of what the ied's

contain, some type of homemade explosives. >> thanks for your effort on that. that has obviously torn families and units apart. we will not be satisfied until there are no more. we appreciate it and you have done. what happens even if our forces remain behind, which obviously we hope we get a bsa, but what do those areas look like post 2014? >> they look like safe havens for al qaeda in that region and an arrangement of extremist organizations, the list goes on, of individuals that use that area, we have largely again kept them from planning and conducting attacks from that area and have largely focused on survival.

they expect we will leave at the end of 2014 and they expect after we leave they will have the opportunity to once again expand or safe haven in the region. by expectation is as we grow in partnership with the afghan security forces and grow their ability that a combination of our training combined with the ever-increasing capability of the afghans will ensure those individuals focus more on their own survival than they do on attacks against afghan people or against us. >> after september 2014, for usaid and provincial reconstruction teams, do they have the ability to still go out and put forward efforts, put forward projects and programs and be in a situation where they will feel safer and secure? >> there will not be any provincial reconstruction teams in 2015.

usaid, the embassy is with them as a whole. the projects will be conducted by afghans except for efforts that fall within that we call operational reach, where our forces are, and a quick reaction capability. we will not have state department employees. >> they will not be in an environment where they will be safe at all? >> absolutely, senator. >> i want to thank you again. you have done an extraordinary job under difficult circumstances. the nation owes you a debt of extreme gratitude. >> thank you. >> senator inhofe. >> thank you. there are things that i'm

concerned about having to do with the inspector, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. at the end of january your staff was accused of preempting and undermining reports after a series of audits. let me ask you three questions here. how do the sgr personnel get to audit locations such as construction sites in southern afghanistan? how do they get access to the dated they need and the afghan ministries? >> we provide that support. >> i wanted to say a statement i regard was that sgr has said 21% of afghanistan will not be accessible to u.s. personnel by 2014. do you think that is true, and how important you think that is

to you their mission? i do not think it is true. >> what sgr is referring to is 21% of the country will be covered by u.s. forces' footprint. that is true because we are reducing so much, but that is irrelevant because what is most important is what is the coverage of those areas where there are actually projects ongoing. there will only be 32 projects in 2015. in all but five of those projects they will fall within our ability to provide proper oversight with u.s. forces. >> that is not correct? >> that is right, senator. >> i read a lot of things, and it appears they go in there, they find out things, they go to the newspapers, and you see a lot of headlines come at high-profile media outlets. what do you consider the most

important role that is supposed to be of sgr, and have they been focused on a role? >> i welcome sgr. i requested inspectors to come over to look at projects. we first of all take stewardship seriously. i realize my responsibility is to make sure that every dollar spent in afghanistan results in the advance of our interests. we take that seriously. what i am interested is the investigators' ability to tell me how i can save money, as opposed to what might have happened in terms of lessons learned. i'm not dismissing lessons learned. for me today, as a commander, i'm much more interested in decisions by making today and decisions i will make tomorrow to make sure those are goods to

seizures and reflect the stewardship. that is where i think investigators can help me the most. >> do you think the headlines are all accurate? >> i think in most cases, in many cases they are sensationalized. >> i think they are, too. does that make your job easier? >> that makes it more difficult. the narrative is very important, and if there is a narrative of pessimism, a narrative of abuse, a narrative that we are not in good stewardship, that affects our mission. >> i identify with remarks made by our chairman. i said that not nearly as eloquently as senator graham did. ok, senator graham is recognized. >> thank you. detainees.

i really appreciate the stand you took against the 65 detainees being released by president karzai. we have a resolution in congress condemning that action. would it be helpful for us as congress to send a signal that we object what president karzai did? >> i do, and i would like to thank you for what you have been doing to ensure we send a clear message. >> and to let them know that economic aid will be cut off if they continue this. could you send the committee a report on the status of the -- to give our 435 something to do. thank you for the hard work out there. report on the status of detainees, give the committee some indication of the problems we face between now and july with detainees, so we can make informed decisions -- can you help us do that? >> absolutely. >> this is an ideological

struggle. there is no air force to shoot down. there's no navy to sink. we are in an ideological struggle with radical islamists, right? >> i agree. >> most of the muslim world, not just us, most of the world is in battle with these. >> absolutely. >> what you are trying to tell us is the best way to keep this war away from the homeland is have lines of defense throughout the world, and these lines of defense would be places like afghanistan that had a stable government, stable, improving economy, and security forces willing to fight the radicals. that is part of the american defense strategy. do you agree? >> yes, that is what we are trying to do. >> i do not know when the war will end. radical extremist movements are

radicalized over time by a better economic opportunity, in the areas they operate. the biggest blow to the taliban and al qaeda is girls going to school. >> i agree. >> and people making their own choices. i know that is complicated and frustrating, but if we will invest in the people who are willing to fight the terrorists along our side in their backyard, i think we would be smart. now, afghanistan under taliban control, the 30 years of previous civil war, was a devastated nation, is that fair to say? >> it is. >> what happened in 2001, a couple years later, when we cleaned up the place, was a devastated society, absolutely no infrastructure. >> that is correct. >> i remember going to kabul and there were a few lights. today it is like myrtle beach. lots of challenges, but there

are two ways of looking at afghanistan. where we started and where we are today. would you agree in many ways it is amazing they have, as far as they have? >> i believe that, and a few years ago we would have described afghanistan in 2014, very few people would believe where we are today. >> i would be among those. there are two ways to look at this. what they have not are and what they are capable of doing. i believe the capability of the afghan people is unlimited when it comes to reforming afghanistan. it will take time. you agree? >> i do. i've seen them accomplish it. >> the key ingredient is well and desire. >> this is a clash of wills. >> the afghan people have the will to move out of the darkness into light. is that a fair statement? >> absolutely. it reflects in the popularity rate where they get at 15% who actually support the taliban

ideology. >> how is the al qaeda poll? and >> we do not have one. i would suspect it to be lower. >> the bottom line is the ace in the hole for america is most people in afghanistan do not want to go back to the dark days of the taliban. they want to go forward, they want a different world. it will not be like america, not like a jeffersonian democracy. it can be representative government. they can be a good ally. don't you believe that? >> i do. >> i hope you understand we are trying to build defenses abroad and let armies abroad do the fighting with a minimal help from us to keep the enemy at bay from attacking us. the goal of al qaeda is just not to control afghanistan. it is to drive us out of the region, right? >> that is exactly the plan for transition. >> and leaving that part of the world in their hands and the economic chaos that would create

is unimaginable. do you agree? >> i do. >> the united states has a great interest in making that part of the world stable. >> if you look at the cost of 9/11, you could make that argument easily. >> if you want to deter the iranians from a nuclear capability, if we abandon afghanistan that could be the worst possible signal about our resolve guarding national security matters. >> it would have a destabilizing effect. >> the iranians would be a big winner of an unstable afghanistan? >> i believe so. >> thank you for your extraordinary service. you have done a great job. we are inside the 10-yard line? >> i believe that. >> thank you. senator levin will be back shortly, so we will stand down until he gets back.

>> i have a couple of additional questions for you, and if the staff is aware if any senators come back, they will let us know. i do not think there are. i talked to you in my office about a couple of incidents that occurred fairly recently during military operations. and i think it is important when these incidents happen, some of which are truly tragic, that there be a prompt response on the part of our military.

first is that a radio station raid in a province. allegedly, our special ops forces scaled the walls of a compound, seized the owner of a radio station, and then beat and threatened him during interrogation. what can you tell us about that? >> senator, that raid is under investigation. i actually prefer not to talk about it publicly, but i reviewed the draft report of the investigation last night. i got the initial results from the commander in our special operations commander, so i think over the next couple days we will have the facts out. >> that was on the radio station? >> that was on the radio station. >> there was a friendly fire incident in eastern afghanistan where it was reported a nato airstrike resulted in friendly

fire deaths of five afghan army soldiers. can you tell us about that incident? >> that was clearly an incident of what we call the blue on green. it was our aviation capability and there were afghan soldiers that were unfortunately killed. i cannot speak publicly about that here and we will have the facts here in a couple days. in all honesty, it was something that happened that should not have happened. >> we have been working with the afghans to try to remedy the loss to the extent that we can? >> very closely, working with the leadership to investigate and take care of the families of the fallen. >> general, i had a chance to chat with a number of my colleagues and running back and

forth to vote, and they unanimously react the way that i do to your service and your testimony, but most importantly is your testimony is compelling, your service is truly extraordinary over these decades, and we all feel that way, and we just want to thank you and thank your family. i know that we had a chance to spend a few minutes with your wife last night. in a few days, maybe you can find a few hours with your family, away from your huge challenges in afghanistan. but we are deeply grateful to you and do all the men and women with whom you serve. with that, we will stand adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> headlines in al jazeera deals with afghanistan. says u.s.hat karzai troops can later afghanistan. his final address to parliament was yesterday. he says afghan forces are capable of defending the country on their own. they already defend 93% of the country. to president has refused

sign a security agreement with the u.s. that would allow forces to remain in afghanistan after troops are drawn down this year. they are holding elections of their own on april 5. all 10 candidates say that if elected, they would sign it be at --the agreement with the u.s. a number of senators were in ukraine yesterday. voting is underway there in crimea to decide whether crimea will remain a part of crimea -- ukraine or become a part of russia. some tweets on lawmakers. >> two of the senators who were in ukraine yesterday appeared on "meet the press." both senator durbin and jeff lake.

here's some of what they had to say. [video clip] military has been hollowed out over the last couple of years. we have nothing that shoots, runs, or flies. it is because the russians have had since close ties with the previous government. they need a lot of help. nothing that we can do will help ukraine withstand what russia is doing if they decide to go in. >> what if they decide not to? what if they become part of russia and they say, ok, that is it. we will have a truce. is that an exceptional status quo? >> no. >> the sanctions would still go? >> they have invaded a sovereign nation. if we will let them do that to ukraine, what they have done to georgia eight years ago -- you can expect more. >> can you reverse that with economic penalties? >> possibly. it will be difficult.

russia has always had designs on a crimea. it will be difficult. all you can do is increase the cost to the family. hope that they do not move further into ukraine. >> is eastern ukraine a redline? >> certainly, we have to move and hard with sanctions. regardless of whether they move tomorrow or the next week or hold back. we will move forward the sanctions. there is about 1.5 hours left. we will bring you updates as they are available. we'll turn now to homeland security. thenew secretary of department, jeh johnson, testified on the $38 billion budget request from president obama for next year. he testified before the house appropriations subcommittee on homeland security about the migration programs, fema, and issues at the u.s./mexico border.

>> good afternoon.

we are going to start. everybody ready? some people have to leave at 5:00 for a hearing on ukraine. we are ready to start. we welcome the secretary jeh johnson. this marks his first appearance before the subcommittee. thank you for being here. we look forward to your testimony. we want to talk about the president's budget request for the fiscal year 2015. buster secretary, budgets are documents that reflect the administration's priorities. proposalook at your for fy 15, what jumps off the page is a blatant disregard for critical security and law enforcement functions and priorities that truly defy logic. either this administration does not see homeland security and law enforcement is important, or

it is trying to game congress and hope we will bailout unjustified --and truly harmful cuts to essential for mine operations. way, as chairman, i am obligated to: you -- to call you on it and not tolerated. we all know that an election-year budget proposal -- that is what we have here today. cut in air and2% marine operations, including a cut in more than 30 flight hours. it proposes a cut of five percent, which includes an arbitrary $30 million cut in investigations and a decrease of detention bed3500 space.

it cuts the coast guard and a cut on 30% of critical acquisitions. a cut of more than 17% to fixed wing flight hours. what we have here is a budget proposal that, if ever enacted, will result in more drugs on our streets, more illegal border incursions, more mariners and distress, more transnational crime and more incidents of smuggling, and child exportation. this outcome is unacceptable. proposes todget increase the spending on the management and headquarters by nearly three percent. to make matters worse, it proposes $1 billion in new fees that are not authorized. your budget assumes in norma's offsets that do not exist.

creation of ae new and costly political program that does not adhere to the plan enacted into law months ago. it has no plan and no justification. this opportunity growth and security initiative is little more than a political wish list that has been presented to congress and to this committee and an immature way. -- amateur way. it does not comply with the law. it is missing many reports required to be submitted with a budget. this is an argument that we have had, especially with homeland, four years. this is how we are able to use facts to understand your budget. the failure to provide these 20 some reports is inexcusable. frankly, it is offensive.

late and incomplete do not comply with the law or meet the standards for budget submittals. mr. secretary, we deal with matters of reality. we enforce the law as it is written. not how we would like it to be. we only deal with laws that are real, not some false or fictitious the.-- fee. that is why the subcommittee is here. we have done this since chairman rogers was in charge. we have been carrying it out for 11 years. one, unwavering support to our front-line personnel in security operations. two, clear alignment of funding for results. discipline, meaning we provide every well justified dollar needed and not one penny more.

this is a commonsense policy. we know you are new. i know you inherited and -- an ill-conceived budget. we will work with you in the coming months. we can only improve this so-called proposal. i give you my word that i will work with you to do that. i think it is clear we have a lot to cover here today. before i recognize you on your testimony, let me turn to my friend, the distinguished ranking member and former for his, mr. price, remark. >> thank you. welcome. this is your first appearance before the subcommittee. your first opportunity to answer questions on the fiscal year 2015 budget request from the president. i hope you'll find the hearings to be constructive and beneficial to your mission as the secretary. the subcommittee is inclined to be candid and probing.

i hope our questions will be fair and reasonable. you have a difficult job. we appreciate and respect your service to the country and that forward to working together. you have inherited it apartment that is more than 10 years old. it has had its share of growing pains, but has made good progress in many areas under the leadership of each of your predecessors. your intent is to build on and hasten that our press. dire need is is in the morale of personnel, which ranks as the lowest among federal agencies. i know that that is a priority for you. i look forward to hearing more about your strategy, not only to address it, the to continue to build the department into one dhs. part of the morale problem has to do with the extended vacancies across multiple dhs leadership offices. some of these can be explained by delays in the senate confirmation process. we have seen some progress on that front. including three important

confirmations last week. for many, the department or it ministration was slow to act. i hope that you can give us a feel for what we might see and when we might see these vacancies filled. you need long-term leaders in charge of all of your departmental components to do your job effectively. i have been particularly impressed with the strides made across the department in using risk-based strategies to priorities the use of sources. from risk-based screening for the tsa, and improved targeting of passages --passengers and cargo, we're taking a more strategic approach to a call pushing many missions. that approach is especially needed now as we continue to live in an era of fiscal restraint. the fiscal 20 year -- fiscal year 2015 budget is $38.2 billion. not including an additional 6.4 billion dollars in disaster relief funding that does not count to the discretionary cap.

billion below1.1 the current funding level. departmentthe only being asked to do more with less. other departments are far worse off. i am hopeful that we can move forward in a bipartisan manner, based on the previously agreed-upon topline fiscal year 15 in numbers. -- this agreement will still leave massive shortfalls across the federal budget in funding for health and resource grants can't -- infrastructure and be on that. quick to criticize the homeland security budget request. we need to realize it is part of a bigger picture. includes, government shutdowns, destructive sequestration cuts, unwise cuts in critical to mystic investments. his history, unfortunately, has

left the administration was severely limited options. there is perhaps no greater challenge than border and immigration enforcement. the is not only because of fact that our immigration system is fundamentally flawed, but also because the politics surrounding immigration are so contentious. byy are plagued exaggerations of both fact and rhetoric. as well as legitimate policy differences. my experience on the subcommittee since its creation has convinced me of the futility of approaching immigration as an enforcement issue or throwing money at the border. or any other aspect of the problem. we must have comprehensive reform. we should have had a long ago. if we can a cop was reform this year, that would go farther than anything else i can think of. to make your job more manageable entered department more successful. one of the things of the things that the committee would benefit greatly from would be more comprehensive and timely data

about how the department is managing its border and immigration enforcement responsibilities. how many individuals are being apprehended and where are they being apprehended? how do they fit into the priorities? how many meet the criteria for detention? how many are put on alternative detention? we need to have more confidence that are detention resources are used for those who are threats to the community or are seriously risks. that our atdo know programs that are less expensive work effectively. better information may not be able to reach a consensus on every question. but it would help us. it would elevate the discussion to one based on empirical evidence and agreed-upon data. to enforcement policy, there has been a debate about the use of prosecutors oriel the russian.

forstmann has a credible history. every know yourself, prosecuting office in the country exercises discretion. and to what extent? exercisingtor not discretion is derelict in their have ated we should discussion about the priorities that the department has established for immigration enforcement. i hope we can agree that it simply must prioritize a convicted felon has committed a more serious crime than a misdemeanor offender or another individual. they pose a bigger risk to the public. we do not have resources to do it all. the specific budget proposal, there are some recent proposals that i was hoping we would not see again. i want to register my concerns with the proposed cuts to fema grants and the coast guard budget. both of those represent

important investment in the future that we cannot change. i am wary of the proposed transfer of funding and response ability for the emergency food and shelter program from fema to that department of housing and urban development. that has been proposed and rejected in the past. i look forward to your testimony. we look forward to continuing to work with you this year in support of your department's important missions. thank you. >> thank you. your entire statement will be entered into the record. you are recognized for five minutes to summarize your testimony. i am sorry -- i should have asked if my chairman has an opening statement. excuse me. >> thank you. thank you for being here. on your first appearance before the committee -- years,past several

ranking counterparts across the capital have worked hand-in-hand to restore regular order to this committee. thoughtful oversight and austerity -- the on the this bill for fiscal year 14 which we agreed upon in january is truly emblematic of that commitment, making responsible choices to right size the federal government and target precious tax dollars. product ofas a true ourng together, reflecting shared desire to roll up our sleeves, cast partisanship to the wayside, and do critical work expected of us. committed to moving forward in a similar fashion for fiscal year 2015.

with honest and fair negotiations. disappointed am that we are here today to review a budget request that as has pointed out is overtly hard to send and poor. the protection of our homeland is the responsibility and paramount importance. i fear this budget request undermines the duty with the same budget gimmicks, unauthorized legislative myposals, and cuts to from security operations that we have come to expect under this administration. we have got to do better. the department has proposed to significantly reduce ice, thatd, and supports the men and women who defend our homeland on the front lines. particular, the budget would decrease custody operations.

by $202 million -- and domestic investigations by several million dollars. and reducing the dissension level by 10%. another strong signal that this administration is not interested in enforcing the immigration laws on the books in this country. this budget cuts over 500 military and civilian personnel at the coast guard. 500 -- when the attorney general is describing the uptick in heroin abuse in our country, he said it is an urgent public health crisis. not see the wisdom and reducing one of our first and most important from minds of defense against hair when drug trafficking -- heroin drug trafficking. the department has budgeted with imaginary money, relying on $1 billion and on authorized increases.

tsaiple cpb user fees and passenger fees. once again, the department has proposed a new fema grant program that has not been formally submitted or vetted by the authorized committees of congress. once again, the department has failed to submit a number of plans and reports which are essential to help this committee do its work and to do its work well. these are not merely suggestions or requests. they are required by law. i could go on, and i may later. the bottom line is this. we have to do better. your testimony today, i hope, wel allay my concerns as work together in protecting our homeland. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sorry about that.

>> thank you mr. chairman and a welcome, mr. secretary. i would like to welcome chairman rogers, mr. price, for their leadership. we value our role in protecting the homeland as well as the bipartisan working relationship we foster to meet that goal. secretary, as you appear before the house appropriations committee for the first time, i welcome you. last year, there were acts of terror and cyberattacks on american businesses and drug cartel violence along the u.s. and mexican border. that has resulted in the murder and0,000 people since 2006 turned some border towns into a war zone. certainlylenges alone make an extremely difficult job. yet, you oversees 16 different

agencies and offices. that is no small feat. i wish you luck, i am ready to work with you to provide our first responders and border patrol officers, special agents , and every federal law enforcement officer with the resources to keep our country safe. budget yet again proposes to consolidate fema, state, and local grants to a large pot, without authorization from congress. it expressly, against the wishes of this committee -- such a consolidation could dilute crucial and i terrorism funds from areas most at risk of attack and leave transit and poor security in the nations most densely populated areas, without the ability to prevent and respond to acts of terror. in addition, the department's

assumption that the job is complete in new york city is premature. a reduction in securing the cities funding could leave new york city without the radiological and nuclear detection capabilities it needs. i commend the, president for his efforts to put americans back to work. while making investment that will enforce our infrastructure. the opportunity, growth, and security initiative that is implemented would provide $400 million in mitigation assistance. natural disasters are becoming more frequent, severe, and costly. a worthyds will be investment in our resiliency in infrastructure. lastly, the best and brightest come to america every day to study and work. due to our broken immigration

system, they return home to compete against us in a global market. this makes no sense. businesses, security professionals, and labor all agree that every day without comprehensive immigration reform is a missed opportunity. i hope that the house will take tothe hr15, nearly identical the senate bill that passed with bipartisan support. when you come before us next year, we will discuss how the budget meetsy16 the implementation needs of this import much elation. thank you. ok, sorry for the mixup. you are now recognized. >> thank you.

there were go. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ranking member price. went to begin by thanking the subcommittee. you have my prepared statement. i will read an abbreviated version. i would like to thank the subcommittee for the strong support you have provided to the department for the last 11 years. i look forward to continuing to work with you in the coming year to protect the homeland and the american people. i am pleased to appear before the subcommittee to present the president's fiscal year 2015 budget request. builds5 budget request on our compliments over the last 11 years, while providing central support to national and economic security. dhs arec missions of and should be preventing terrorism and enhancing security.

securing and managing our borders. enforcing and administrating immigration laws. safeguarding cyberspace and strengthening national preparedness and resilience. budget request provides the resources necessary in our judgment to maintain and strengthen our efforts in each of these critical mission areas. all of the fy 15 requests -- $60.9 billion in total budget $38.2 billion in net discretionary funding -- of note, the president's request funds the national security cutter 8 as part of the recapitalization of the coast guard. a request money to complete the funding to construct the national bio defense facility,

central to the protection of the nation's food supply and security. the budget will provide $10.2 billion to support disaster resiliency, primarily through the grants program that are administered by fema and the disaster relief fund. i would like to also mention vacancies. there has been a lot of discussion in the senior levels of the department. i am pleased that the senate last week acted on the confirmation of suzanne asulding and john roth inspector general. we have three more that are awaiting confirmation now. i would like to report that with respect to the other senior leaders, i have in mind at least one individual that we are recruiting trip --recruiting. this is an active part of my responsibility as secretary to fill these leadership positions. i spend virtually some part of everyday working on this important mandate.

secretary, i am mindful of the environment in which we pursue each of our important missions. the days are open --over when we can expect more and more to be added each year. believe, as i know many members of this committee believes, i am obligated to inefficiencies and waste and duplication of resources across dhs's large and decentralized bureaucracy, while pursuing important missions like the recapitalization of the aging coast guard fleet. we reached a major milestone last year when the department achieved its first unqualified or clean audit opinion on its financial reporting. these are important steps in ensuring that management and oversight functions. there is more to do. of the agenda, we are tackling the budget. we have appropriations over 120

projects. there are significant structural inconsistencies across components. that makes mission-based budget planning and budget execution analysis difficult. we're making changes as i have discussed with members of the committee, to the budget process to better focus our efforts. i, along with the deputy secretary, and personally engaged in finding the necessary leadership and direction for this process. management reform agenda, i am also doing a top to bottom review of our acquisition and governance project, from how we develop our strategies to the development of our requirements on how we sustain our platforms, equipment, and people, and everything in between. this will include the thoughtful, but necessary, consolidation of functions to provide the department with the proper oversight, management, and her spots ability to carry out this task. this will allow dhs to more fully in sure the solutions we

pursue our responsive to our strategy and technological -- are technologically mature. i look forward to discussing our strategies as we move forward in this area. the last thing i would like to comment on is --the comment was made that i was now. -- new. the week before last, and my testimony before the homeland panel, someone remarked that we know you inherited this. when you inherit it, you own it. i accept responsibility for the department and its budget. someone has to be responsible and that is me. thank you and i look forward to your comments. >> thank you. i appreciate your comment. you know, in the past four apprehendedhas

66,928 illegal entrants into the rio grande valley. the rio grande valley is in texas. we call it the valley. policies, procedures, and adjudication resulted in many of them staying in the united states for an indeterminate. of time -- period of time. leading to a de facto catch and release policy. answer,etary, nas or no does the administration regret the flawed catch and release policy of our past history? what do you think? do you know the effects of this? i do not believe so. i would be opposed to such a policy. i know from my expense of the

department of defense that an armed force or law enforcement force has serious objections to a catch and release policy. we ask these people to put their own minds on the line. if you do that, you should not catch, capture, or arrest someone only to be released moments later. i do not believe we have such a policy. >> let's look at some things. we have a combination of government directives, deferred action, and interpretations, and a proposed budget cut waiting to a de facto catch and release policy. are all of these directives and entrantsnting recent temporary status --even if it is a type of legal limbo? the white house decisions, including the latest proposal s

lashed resources and created a posture that has led to humanitarian dilemmas and law enforcement nightmares. i am from texas. we have talked. illegal border crossings are a big deal to me. know what is going on in the rio grande valley. rgv,group calls that the we call it the valley. we worry about the escalated flow of illegal aliens in our neighborhoods. aboutry more and more transnational criminal networks that support these illegal crossings. the word on the border is --at least in texas, is today, no one crosses the river without the cartel thing involved. are the statistics about apprehension --for the first quarter of fiscal year 2014 --

between october and january, four months. 66,828 people were apprehended. new -- other than mexicans. others were juvenile. were these folks apprehended -- they met the mandatory detention criteria. they were recent illegal entrants. they were not all placed in detention. what happened to them? once they were processed and turned over to ice? placed inere removed, alternative detention, credible fear --are awaiting immigration hearings? how many are waiting to be deported? we cannot ship them back to

mexico. how many weren, delivered to family members living legally or illegally in the united states? how many children continue to wait and shelters until they can be reunited with family members? there is no doubt, mr. theretary, in my opinion -- current policies are causing systematic failures to the united states enforcement process. anating, i would argue, invitational posture that is leading to a humanitarian crisis. it is a really sad story to hear. we hear it all the time. child, dropped across the bridge in brownsville, with a plan that ends instigated by the cartel. there is nothing to worry about the small child. they will be delivered by ice to agents who will accompany him to

a family in virginia. this whole policy is treating a disaster. aren't what our policies that were established -- would you consider this to be creating bad behavior? what is your solution? >> a couple of comments. first, i have been to the valley. i have spent time there. i have done the rio grande and i have talked to our border patrol agents on the front lines about the challenges they face and what they need. know from personal experience that very often you learn more from talking to the people on the front lines then you do your subordinates in washington. when i went to the valley, i told my subordinates in washington to stay home and i wanted to talk to record to the guys on the front line.

i agree that we have some real challenges in some texas. i think south texas, particularly, of late, is presenting real challenges and we have work to do. one of the things that i was struck by when i visited the detention center on january 20 -- there were 995 detainees there. only 18% or mexican. there were like 30 nationalities representative in that one detention center. it is clear why. smuggling organizations are bringing these individuals through mexico, into the united states as part of a plan. so, one of my concerns and challenges is that i think we have to be very aggressive when it comes to going after the organizations, some of whom are beholden to the cartel. one crosses the south

texas border who is not being smuggled. there is no freelancing. it is all part of an organized process put in place. to aspects oftive our system that may create magnets for illegal immigration. i am sensitive to that. when i was on the frontlines, i talk to our border patrol folks about some of the stresses that they face on the front lines. as a result of the system we have in place. in my judgment, this is one of the reasons we need comprehensive immigration reform. both for the added border security that it would provide and, frank a matter of homeland earned path to citizenship for the 11 million who are here. i want them to come out of the shadows so we know who they are. i am