ation the president of the united states has given out and how we read it every day in the media. we learn about the drall, the troop size, all kinds of unbelievable information. and to kind of follow up on my colleagues' comment and i don't want to ask you this for public disclosure, i want to know the detailed plan b what are the flags and the signs that are going to trigger our re-engagement should this go awry? i want to know we have a plan and i don't want to ask it for public for everybody and the world to listen, but i would ask you to provide it in writing or classified briefing, what are we going to look for without more loss of blood and life and engagement from america. and my other question is on the new aamuf, i attended a briefing

a couple of months ago and we were talking about current rules of engagement as it pertains to afghanistan, with this train, advise and assist mission. isil is networking. we know they are recruiting in afghanistan. so my question was under this current operation you're under was if isil is identified by american troops or after began national security forces in the assist mode we are in, can we absolutely destroy isil and the answer from the state department no, ma'am. my comment was i would consider the fact that we are at war with them means we should destroy them. in your role right now, what is your understanding when isil is identified. are they taken out because we are at war with them or given a path?

general campbell: we don't talk but rules of engagement. i would just answer that and say i'm comfortable with the authorities that i have today that i can prosecute the mission both from a c.t. perspective and train, advise and assist perspective and protect the forces that i have. i can't go into the rules in this environment. mrs. walorski: i would like to have a conversation that talks about that at some point. and also, this new amuf. how can you engage isis? do you have more advantages? general campbell: i have seen the piece. there is no gee graphical boundries that would help out in afghanistan. i would have to do a more detailed look. right now, i have the authorities that i need to be able to prosecute the c.t. and train, advise and assist

mission. i would have to look at that and how it would impact 15 and more importantly for me as we transition in 2016. mrs. walorski: in relation to the size and troop strength compared to what you are doing right now, what additional kinds of missions or what additional kinds of coverage do you have right now that you are going to lose and if that's something you can't talk about that, i would like a conversation about that. when we are talking about, what are we actually losing there? what steps are in between there that are there for our purposes for the train, assist and -- assist the afghani forces. what does that mean? how much coverage are the afghan forces going to do on their own? but i really do want to follow up answers to those questions so we know as members of congress who are going to be voting on this that there is some kind of

a plan -- i don't think anybody can take anybody's word for anything. we also see how these things change on a dime. we owe the american pun a chance to have at least a plan. i appreciate and look forward to your responses in writing or in a classified briefing. thank you, sir. i yield back. the chair: mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: i would like to thank you and those who served under you for the incredible job that you are doing and have done in afghanistan and i join my colleagues in just thanking you for this terrific performance which goes beyond any claims that someone could have made or anecdote, but actually by the numbers or the pictures and what we can see and what my

colleagues are able to see. i agree with many of the comments made so far that i think there are many lessons we can apply from your success, this country's success in afghanistan to our operations and objectives in iraq. when it comes to the proposed aumf that we are considering to combat isis, my understanding that the immediate goal is to stop isis and ultimately to degrade, defeat and destroy isis. what is our goal in afghanistan relative to the taliban? general campbell: i really do believe that on aumf, i look forward to that and maybe in a closed session we can talk about that. on the taliban piece, our goal is to build the afghan capacity both in their police and army to

be able to have the stable afghanistan for the future. taliban in their message is not having any traction with the afghan people. as i said, it is time for the afghan taliban to look at what they are trying to do and become part of the political process. president ghani in his inauguration speech opened the door for them to come back and work on reconciliation which could be a game changer down the road but it has to work with afghanistan down the road and where they build their afghan capability. but i do believe they want to get the taliban where they are part of the afghan vision moving forward and killing other afghans is not part of that vision. so they have to operate from a position of strength and 352,000 security forces and local police give them that capability. and the taliban are looking

around and saying, the coalition forces, they signed a b.s.a. and will continue to provide train, assist and advise. we have to come in. so i think that's where we're going with the taliban. but it is because the afghan security forces are going to drive it. mr. o'rourke: i think we are seeing record casualties and losses from the afghan security forces and thankfully and much to do, i think what your leadership and service men and women on the ground diminish casualties from coalition forces. military commanders have asked for additional flexibility, something i think makes a lot of sense and fully endorse give quen the lessons we have learned from iraq and learning from iraq. i'm assuming that includes the vaket for air strike raids

against terrorists and those who seek to do us harm. what status and to the degree you can offer clarity in this, what will you have to see on the ground in that country to recommend that we no longer need that flexibility and that we can meet our -- what's going to be in 2016, our goal of having normal embassy-level of protection. again through numbers or as clearly as you can describe what that condition will have to look like. general campbell: i could address the casualty piece first. 5% to 7% or more larger increasing than 2013. if you put it in context, it is about the operational template, four times greater than they had in 2013. 100,000 coalition were not out

there. it was expected that casualties would rise. one casualty is too much. what we continue to focus on, one is to improve the afghan capability to reduce the casualties doctors, and we are working on that. that continues to progress. and then also the recruiting piece. they have got that much better. they don't recruit all year round. they stop during the summer and fighting season. now they have processes in place to do it year round. it doesn't ebb and flow like that. the casualty piece he -- the attrition rate is not based on the casualties the number one reason is the leadership. so what it would take from me to recommend that we could continue to transition and make sure that the seams and the gaps we have identified for a very long time

that we need to continue to work on the afghan security forces and got them to a level that they have the processes that they need. so the areas of aviation and we buildup their aviation capability. first thing i could ask for is closer air support or building their closer air support. when i get a request, i have asked them first do you have a quick reaction force have you fired your mortars or military. you have a few mi-35's and make sure they are out there. we are working mb-530. we will continue to work that. they won't have much for the next fighting season but we'll continue to develop it and fix-wing capability and a-29. so that will continue to grow.

once we get closer to the aviation support and work on the sustainment and build their special forces capability, i will feel much better. the chair: mr. briody bridenstine. mr. bridenstine: the president's capability is to take it down to 5,000 troops in 2015. in your best professional judgment is that the right end strength? general campbell: about 5,500 by the end of december. the options that i provided is flexibility for president ghani to look at force protection and how to get to the train and advise and assist. mr. bridenstine: the forces lost over 20,000 personnel to desergses and deaths. does that concern you?

general campbell: if you put it into context and i think we are working processes and procedures to make sure that doesn't have a great impact. any dessert go, it concerns the president. but it is about having processes in place to bring those people on board to keep them in and it isn't about the combat casualties. that's a fraction of it but looking at them and saying are they getting paid. mr. bridenstine: is there a correlation between our drawdown cutting our troops by half and their desertions? general campbell: my gut would tell me no. bide mr. bridenstine: you discuss the islamic state and as the commander of forces in afghanistan, you suggest that

isis is one of your priority intelligence components. what is going on with isis in afghanistan that makes it a priority intelligence requirement? general campbell: i have several of those. that is not my only p.i.r. as we look at in talking to president ghani and did a deep divide with the intelligence agencies inside of afghanistan to look at what they are doing, i said i needed to learn more and make it a p.i.r. for my intelligence folks. as we go through a number of things, as we allocate resources, because it is a p.i.r., it will get more -- a better look at it and provide me more continued updates. that's why i did that concern for president ghani and concern for me. the term out there is nays ent.

it is a nacent organization. it grew quickly in iraq and syria, they can jump over different stageses. making a p.i.r. gives me better visibility on it. mr. bridenstine: press reports in early indicate that one was killed in afghanistan in a drone strike. the "washington post" called him a figure actively recruiting for isis in afghanistan, specifically, hell monday where coalition troops withdrew in october. can you confirm these reports. this is in the "washington post." general campbell: a lot of media that he was designated as a deputy amir of isil in afghanistan, the amir of pakistan and afghanistan in that area.

was actually a t.t.p. and he said i'm a deputy. and -- mr. bridenstine: before you -- i have one minute left. general campbell: the answer is yes. mr. bridenstine: when you think of him, he was a taliban commander and was detained at gitmo, released and we turned him over to the afghan detention facility and escaped and became a recruiter for isis. general campbell: he was underneath of afghan control. mr. bridenstine: as we look at it coming forward we have to make decisions about gitmo. does it concern that our troops in afghanistan are fighting the same enemy twice? general campbell: concerns me they are fighting the enemy once or twice. mr. bridenstine: is closing gitmo at this time knowing that 30% of the people are going back into the war, is that good or

bad judgment. general campbell: that's a policy question and i'm a military guy. i want to make sure i have the ability to do if people are going to come back into afghanistan, i have the ability to make sure i'm comfortable with the assurances that afghanistan or whatever country makes, that i have the ability to make sure whatever assurances that these people will not attack coalition forces. i want to make sure i'm tied into that. the chair: mr. veezey. veezeveeze i want to ask a couple of questions based on popular opinion poll and talking about afghan expressing confidence in the new government. do you have any sort of sense how afghan's confidence is concerned with afghan capabilities post-u.s. or

post-u.s. drawdown? general campbell: like anything else they understand the capability of just having the coalition with them provides and a lot of them is giving them confidence. as i look at that, i get asked, close air support, don't plan your operation wholly dependent upon close air support. the taliban doesn't have close air support. they don't have humvees or how itsers or the weapons you have. part of it is leadership and the confidence to take this fight to the enemy. if you go out on the streets of kabul and engage with 85% or 80 -plus percent of the people, they are thankful for the coalition and they are comfortable. it also provides the opportunity to engage, jobs, that kind of

thing. i think they would tell you they feel comfortable with the coalition presence. mr. veasey: what about a u.s. drawdown, how would that be perceived in the terror community? do you think the people in the terror community taliban or even outside the taliban or outside of afghanistan how do they view the afghan capability as far as being able to protect their own country? general campbell: i go back, if i could answer the last one in more detail. there was, i think at different points of time a sense of abandonment if you talk to some afghans. the security forces as they get the message out and show the afghan people what they are capable ever and that increases their confidence that the afghan security forces can handle this. there was abandonment type discussions going on.

i haven't seen that as the afghan security forces continues to get better and better. in the terror community that you talked about, i think they were thinking that the coalition would be gone after 2014. and that they would wait that out with the b.s.a. and sofa now signed, that for many years, we will have a continued commitment by the international community to remain in afghanistan and in the resources provided to afghanistan. i think the time has come they have to become part of the political process and have to get back into -- they can't have afghans killing afghans and muslims killing muslims and it is a sign of strength that the president signed the b.s.a. and sofa and the message that is sent to the terrorist community we thought it's going to go away and it's not.

the chair: mr. cook. mr. cook: i want to commend you and your testimony years of service and combat piece, adding up all the deployments you have been through. what i wanted to address is something that isn't here and it's of concern to our nato partners, maybe under the radar and that's the situation of the poppy and the drugs and the corruption that from a rational viewpoint it affects us. how are we doing on -- can you comment on the status of that and where it's going right now? general campbell: sir, thanks for the question. there have been a lot of different reports on the cultivation of poppies and the impact of that and financially for the insurgents. a lot of that coming out of the area. it has increased the last couple

of years as opposed to going down. the president has talked about it. he is looking hard at a strategy of how he goes after that and deals with people that produce it deals with the insurgents that use it for their gain. they looked at different options down there. they have quite a good record of a small task force that goes after and seizes different places and for lack of a better term, drug labs that produce what comes out of there. but quite frankly, it has not been enough and the strategy has not taken it away from the insurgents. that is not part of my t.a.a. or c.t. mission, so i can't comment further on that piece of it. but bottom line, it does provide fuel financial assistance to the taliban and we have to take -- and the government of afghanistan is looking hard at how they can combat that.

mr. cook: thank you. the relationship with pakistan, obviously has improved quite a bit. the military. the equipment, one time, we are always concerned about the equipment backlog going through pakistan and everything else. are we in pretty good shape on that where containers are backed up to the sky and quick update on that. general campbell: thanks for the question. the logistical community and what we have done with equipment is phone no, ma'amon. when people fully understand the amount of equipment that came out and how it came out. this is record-setting. and we are on glide path now. and all the numbers we thought we needed to hit coming out of the mission to where we are today, we are on those numbers. so i feel very, very comfortable. it ebba and flows through down in the south based on the

relationship with pakistan. but the relationship with pakistan today and afghanistan is the best i have seen it in all the times i have been over there and a lot of that is because of chief of the army in pakistan and president ghani and their relation of how they come together. but the retrograde is on glide slope. mr. cook: i was happy to hear that. i want to switch to uzbekistan uzbekistan in the north. land-locked country, they have to have good relations with pakistan. iran is a whole new ball game. what's the relationship with uzbekistan? i know they were working on that bridge or i think it was the train that was going down there. is that still ongoing? general campbell: i haven't seen a final piece where they signed a memorandum of understanding.

i know president ghani has personally reached out to all the countries in the region and visited many of them. i don't think in the last couple of months he visited uzbekistan, but has talked to the senior leadership. they talked about the rail and the bridges and sharing of intelligence back and forth and how they can fight different insurance. a lot in the north is around criminal activity as opposed to the insurgent piece. there is arms trafficking and drugs trafficking and working together. he has asked senior members of his administration, two different countries -- i could find out but several members of senior positions in afghanistan have gone to visit uzbekistan as well. mr. cook: thank you for your service. i yield back. the chair: ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth: thank you for being here today. as a time of sequestration when we are cutting our funding for forces here in the u.s. and looking at everything from

shutting down economies areas on bases and adjusting benefits for our forces, we are looking at future expenditures in afghanistan. i have concerns about how they are spending the money that we are providing them with the resource and specifically you had mentioned their lack of self-sustaining capability. i would like to look at their ability to account for personnel . where we talk already the over 20,000 troops' attrition in the afghan forces that has been reported. i rely on the special inspector general's report as to what's going on there and there have been real concerns. the number of afghan military and police forces fluctuate significantly from quarter to quarter as much as 20,000 to

40,000 personnel and i'm worried we are spending this money and not spending as much on our u.s. forces here. are those 40,000 troop fluctuations, is that an accounting error? those folks were never there or they quit or we are paying for ghost soldiers that were on the books? can you talk a little bit how we are providing oversight for the afghans and help to them to figure out how they can get a handle on their forces and how they are spending this money we are providing. general campbell: thank you for your service as well. that is a very, very tough complex to get your hands around. in our own army, we have a hard time, sometimes figuring out who is present for duty and who is not. many of the figures you have

seen in the last several days in numbers, first off, we need to make sure members of congress have total transparency on everything we are doing inside of afghanistan and we are committed to provide congress everything they need to do that. some of the things are classified and back in august time frame, so this is not a new story. but back in august, i asked to look at the information that was going out to the press and everybody else. and i said anything that is readiness data that could be construed as ready -- readiness data and that needs to be classified. we are wholly dependent upon the afghans for our own force protection and became more so that i needed to have the readiness data classified. all of our services' data is classified, as you know. that decision was made in august.

i reafffirmed with president ghani about having that data classified. again here in the last two weeks or so, i said i want to make sure you are comfortable because i'm getting asked a lot of questions on this. he was adamant that afghan data that pertained to readiness data was classified. i feel comfortable where we are at. and as has been reported that i have changed my mind i have not. readiness data remains classified. the last report that came out a couple days ago what happened there, and again i want to make sure they have everything to do their job and congress has the information as well, but numbers reported and numbers where you get that information comes from many different sources and there is a report called the 1230 report, and that is sort the -- that's the baseline and that's where the numbers need to come from and they understand it as well. some of the reports you saw and

some of the zrep answer si were quarrel reports and they came from maybe lower headquarters where members went down to lower headquarters and said what are your numbers? we need to do a much better job to make sure we have processes in place to provide the right data at the right time. and we are working on that. i just signed a standard operating procedure to consolidate how we work that. we have over 50, probably 62 audits going on inside afghanistan. 60-plus. as we have transitioned and brought our numbers down, i don't have the people in country to do all that. i'm dependent on reach back or otherwise and we have to figure out how we provide audit data but at the same time continue to transition. and i don't have that capability. i have to raise that with my own

leadership as we go forward. but the numbers you saw the last couple of days, there is a miscommunication. when i learned through the "new york times" that these numbers are going to be replaced, i contacted them and said we need to take a hard look at this data. i don't think it's right. so they stopped the release of that piece, and we worked hard to make sure everybody gets the right data. hopefully that answers your question. >> thank you. the chair: mr. scott. mr. scott: if there's one thing we've learned over the last several months it is that the people of the country have to be willing to hold that country and i'm speaking specifically of iraq. afghanistan, obviously, a very different country. i think that from the context of the american citizen, maybe the way it's talked about the perception is it's all one and the same issue, if you will.

i do think that we need to do a better job of getting that message out when we do have the victories because all america is hearing right now is the bad that's happening in the middle east. thank you for your service. i want to talk about an issue you talked about, obviously in order for afghanistan to be a success they have to hold the taliban -- hold back the taliban and other terrorist organizations, when we are hopefully pleatly out of there. the afghanistan air force, the a-29 light air support mission right now is currently, they're being trained at moody air force base in valdosta. if you can just speak to that element, how critical it is, the air support, and the afghanistans being able to carry out their own air support long-term and how many a-29's do you expect we should be prepared to provide for the afghanistan

air force? general campbell: thank you for that question. it is a very long process. i wish we would have started years ago. but we are where we are and i think what's happening there training the pilots, training the maintainers for the fixed wing close air support capability is critical for afghanistan and our air force to move to the future. we can't get it quick enough for them. the current program has about 20 years, we won't have any for this fighting season 2015. we'll get some before the start of fighting season in 2016, most will come out in 2017 and 2018. that's why we need to continue this train, advise and assist at least on the air force piece.

it is a great, great capability. they're looking forward to it. i think it will give them and the people in that region will understand that the afghans have this great close air support capability. we'll work in other ways to work that here in the near term with forward firing machine guns with md-530, this little bird i talked about. and they do have 120 mortars howitzers, that will can't to work with them on different ways to improve that capability. but this is a huge asset they're looking forward to getting inside of afghanistan. mr. scott: we have to make sure when we leave that country the country is prepared to hold and govern thems. the situation in iraq right now is certainly lessons learned the hard way, if you will. mr. chairman i have no further questions. thank you for the a-29 mission. if we can ever host you at moody

air force base, be happy to have you town there. with that, i yield back the remained over my time. the chair: mr. kourtney. mr. courtney: -- chip mr. courtney: -- the chair: mr. courtney. mr. courtney: tomorrow at hartford there's going to be a sendoff for the connecticut national guard 192nd battalion heading off to afghanistan and you know first of all, they were given notice almost 16 days ago to the day that they were being sent over and i realize this is not in your lane in terms of making the decisions about reaching into guard and reserve units. but frankly folks are scratching their heads, we're at a force level of about 10,000, guard and reserve, there was an understanding and acceptance back in the surge days, when we had hundreds of thousands of people over in the middle east

you know, tapping into the guard at this point and frankly doing it with almost the bare notice required by law is something that again, folks are struggling with. so first of all, i guess i would ask you, i don't mean to put you on the spot but if you were in front of those families tomorrow night, you know what you would share with them i'm not asking you to explain the decision making process because i realize that happens somewhere else in terms of your command but again as their leader over in afghanistan, what would be your thoughts that you would share with the families. general campbell: thank you. again, the army, all our service couldn't do what we do without our military families, i'd first thank them for their sacrifice, for having to allow us to have that soldier continue to serve. i'd tell them that what they're getting ready to do, two things, it's a very, very important mission, will mean a great deal to the afghan people but also provides for our own security

back here. i'd ask them to watch out for each other and always take care of brothers and sisters on their left and right to make sure that force protection is always foremost in their mind. i'd ask that they don't get complacent. but they do have a very, very important job. many times what i tell the soldiers airmen, sailors marines over there, they're too close to it. they can't see the changes we talked about earlier. people serve for different reasons but they do serve because they know that they're serving for the greater good. when they come to afghanistan, i tell them, you know, whatever you do make that place better than when you found it. i think i've seen over the years everybody continues to do that. they'll have an impact on whatever they do, whoever they touch. again sometimes it's an impact they can't put into words but i would tell you their service would be honored and that they will feel good about what they've done after they leave there. i can't speak to the service

provider piece, for many, many years, our national guard, our u.s. army reserve, have played an important role back in iraq and afghanistan and will continue as we move forward and so i appreciate their service. mr. courtney: thank you. i will share those thoughts. frankly, as we've wrestled with the draw down and force reduction and sequestration and budget control act, it sort of has reignited a little bit of the sort of tension about whether or not the guard and reserve really are on parity in terms of the rest of forces and again the fact that they got this order to head over, you know, at a time when maybe the average person wouldn't think that kind of is consistent with the rest of the force level underscores to me the value that active duty still a-- believes exists in terms of the guard and reserve units. and they have done yeomen's work

in iraq and afghanistan and they deserve all the kudos and appreciation we can possibly give them. so again, thank you for your comments and again, i'll pass them along. i yield back. the chair: thank the gentleman. mr. jones. mr. jones: thank you. general campbell, thank you and your staff for being here today. i'm going to take a different approach. i looked at your narrative and the comment by senator levin, who is now retired and said, i cite these public opinion polls americans, 65%, 70% think we haven't received anything and he's critical of the people that don't think we've achieved anything by saying at the end of it and people that are 7,000 miles away think we haven't. well i would say to the senator it's those people back home that are paying the bills. they need to get something out of the tax dollars that they're paying. when we went into afghanistan in

2001, the debt of our nation was $5.95 trillion. today it is other $1 trillion in debt. -- it is over $18 trillion in debt. you know from your brothers and sisters in the military what we're faced with with budgets. all right. then, i read in a blog yesterday from someday jason ditz, between casualties and desertion, the afghan military is shrinking fast. the desertion problem is a long standing one, with many afghans signing up if they are military, sticking around long enough to get their first paycheck and then bailing and often taking their weapons with them as they -- as a sort of severance package. then in "the guardian" yesterday, afghan officials sanction murder, torture, rape, says report. now i realize that this is from

human watch and we can have our views on that, there's a lib -- whether it's a liberal group or conservative group or whatever, that's fair. but they still write this and apparently there's been no dispute. i'll read just one paragraph. the report focuses on eight commanders and officials across afghanistan. some of them counted among the country's most powerful men and key allies for foreign troops. some are accused of personally inflicting violence. others of having responsibility for malicious or government -- if militias or government forces that commit the crimes. i know some good thibs are happening, i don't question that at all, but we are -- afghanistan has been proven to be the wild west. what my concern is, we've got nine more years of a financial commitment and a military commitment which might be limited in numbers but they're still young men and women out there walking the roads to be

shot at and have their legs blown off, i just wonder, because we in congress are going to be grappling with sequestration this year. the chairman and ranking member who are doing a great job, are very concerned about the military budget and i think all of us here are as well. i know i am, i have camp lejeune down in my district. but i get to a point that i just wonder, not talking about you, sir, you're an outstanding great military person, but will there p ever be anyone in the diplomatic corps or the military that say, you know we've done about all we can do. some things are impossible. yes some people will benefit, but when i read reports like this, whether they be from the left or the right pat buchanan is one of my biggest pee heros, ron paul is one of my dearest friends, and i continue to see nine more years of spending money that we don't have so we

can decrease the number in our military. it doesn't make any sense. i know you don't make the policy decisions, i understand that, but will there ever be someone who follows behind you and follows behind me that will be honest to the congress and the american people who have to pay the bill that we've done about as much as we can do? general campbell: sir, thanks for the question. i'd answer like this. again, you know, quite frankly this is the world we live in. maybe not the world we want. and i think the complexity of the world we live in is a generational piece that's going to go on long after you and i are out of here. and we need to understand that. and look at it as a generational issue and put strategies and policies into place that will get at this long term. it's not going to change overnight and i think we just have to change our mindset on

where we're at. i think the american people are well-served by the great men and women who continue to raise their right hand and serve, knowing that they can go into harm's way. knowing that despite, try to do something bigger than themselves that they're going to face going into service that's going to have budget issues that it's going to take away. and so i think this is a long-term issue we have to get at. but what i'm pleased about is that, you know you mentioned all those different reports, and there are challenges, not only in afghanistan but many places in the world, i do see afghanistan as a place, because of the significant investment in lives and financial that we have provided to them that this can be the bright spot. that this is, for lack of a better term, a strategic win that will carry on in this part of the world as a very complex, dangerous part of. and for very little continued investment, we can make this a shining light of central asia and that part of the world and i think we've got to start

someplace. afghanistan is the good news story among all these other bad things coming out. for every bad news report you mentioned, there's probably nine or 10 good news that don't get out because as you know, gd news doesn't sell. i give the president over there a good news story board that talks about the good things afghans are doing in different areas. when i meet with him, i say, mr. president, dr. abdullah, here's some good news stories. you're not hearing it in the news, but you need to know this is happening. i give him 10 or 15 power point slides with pictures. that word doesn't get out because it doesn't sell but for every suicide vest that went off in kabul, there are nine or 10 that are stopped. there are good news out there. the chair: the gentlelady from guam, ms. boar dal la. -- ms. boar lal doe.

-- ms. bordallo. ms. bordallo:: i want to quote the national security plan saying, we must recognize that a smart national security strategy doesn't rely solely on military power. indeed in the long-term our efforts to work with other countries to counter the ideology and root causes of violent extremists will be more important. i strongly support this approach, general, however, i'm also concerned that the persistence we have shown in afghanistan and our presence there can have harmful effects on our long-term readiness. as we draw down to a force capable of protecting our security interests in the region how will we capitalize and reutilize the equipment, and i know this was brought up earlier, that we currently have in country to protect the readiness of our total force? specifically, can you comment on retrograde efforts as they are supported in the f.y. 2016

budget and what impact sequestration would have on this effort if sequestration is not repealed? general campbell: thank you, ma'am. thank you for your visit last fall, as well. looking at the numbers for f.y. 2016 i would say we will continue to need the financial resources to bring back the retrograde we have in afghanistan to put back in the force here probably 80% of that now is for the army but the very best equipment we have is in afghanistan so we need to continue and make sure we get that back, get it reset and get that into the force. i do think we're going going to do that. we had some concerns a year, year and a half ago but as a commander on the ground, i don't have those same concerns and will continue to get that back to the army. sequestration from a different perspective, i think, will impact the read i -- readiness of all our services. that's why i think all the

services have come out and said it would have a really, really bad impact if we go to sequestration. ms. bordallo: thank you. recently, the first lady of afghanistan said women come to me and say you have foferingten us. i am -- forgotten us. i am a strong champion of women's right and wonder what can we do working with the afghans and nato to ensure that women's rights are respected across the country as we continue to draw down our forces? how are we encouraging or working with the afghan government to ensure greater inclusion of women in civic society? and a few years back, i traveled with speaker -- then-speaker, leader pelosi, we visited many of the women leaders in afghanistan. and they were very, very concerned about the future. so can you comment on that, general? general campbell: thank you, ma'am. we work very hard both from a coalition perspective but also president ghani works very hard

to make sure he's working on the women issue -- on gender issues. both getting women into the police and the army, the money $25 million congress has approved for this specifically pinpointed to work on these type of issues is very, very helpful and we're thankful for that support. but it will take time for the police and the army and the police are doing much better than the army, quite frankly, on integrating women into the force , but we'll look hard as as we go through that. some of the cultural differences make that fuffer. but i think they're both committed from the o.o. -- r.o.i.. we're always looking at ways to improve i want to say 24% of parliament is women, i don't think we have in our own congress so that's very good in afghanistan. so president gaw nee and the first lady -- ghani and the

first lady di have put a lot of work into this and reaching out as well. i do have a gender advisor from my force from australia actually that focuses on a lot of different activities going on to see how we can do that much better. she engages with nato and all our nate toe and partner fores as well to ensure we're doing everything we can to enrich this and keep emphasis on it. ms. bordallo: thank you, general, for your comments. i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: thank the gentlelady. dr. when strup. mr. when -- dr. wenstrup. mr. wenstrup: thank you general. i would agree with you whole heartedly, i think it was a great move by ghani to sign a b.s.a. and sofa, i think that bodes well for all of us.

i think it was probably wise for all of -- from where i sit for ghani and abdullah to come together as partners. so my question is, what are you seeing as far as that relationship between the two of them and its effect on any national unity in afghanistan? general campbell: that's a great question. i look at this every day and i think that both president ghani and dr. abdullah gave up some to have afghanistan as a nation continue to move forward. they both did that after a long period there as they worked together and as i see both of them, many times both together and separately, i think they complement each other as they work together. they both have great vision for where they want to take afghanistan and you know, it really is the people around each of them, i think they have to continue to work through and they've run into instances where they've had differences but i think they work hard to make

sure as they come out to the public they have one voice as they move forward. that's not easy all the time but i think they understand how important it is so they work toward that both from a security perspective and then from an economic perspective. again, i think they complement each other and i'm honored to have the opportunity to engage with both of them quite a few times every week. >> in a sense has that carried over to the military in some ways as far as unity and cohesion amongst the military and the morale within the military the afghan forces? general campbell: yes. president ghani is a commander in chief, so his interaction with security forces is totally different than where we were under president karzai, the morale, it's gone way up just knowing they have someone that cares for their welfare, that's visited them at training sites, visited their wounded in hospitals, that's talked to them about changing the authorities for core commanders on what they can and can't do. he has video teleconferences several times since i've been with him with the senior

leadership. he has national security council meeting every week that brings in the leadership if the police and army. again, i think they are thankful that they do have a commander in chief that's taken not only their own welfare but also their family's welfare as he loobs for ways to help out wounded warriors and different things. it is quite good. mr. wenstrup: with that in mind, since they have not been in office very long you have questions come up about deserters, do you anticipate that rate will slow down as a result? general campbell: how i try to make that tie new york i think president ghani, what he's trying to do is put leadership in that can make a difference. he's taking a look at all of his generals, retired on order of about 60 generals since he's been -- general officers since he's been -- as the president. they hadn't had any retimes in the last four or five years

under president karzai. so in the last four months or so they have had about 60-plus. that's infusing new blood, he's looking hard at the people he puts in those positions trying to interview every one of his general officers or people he promotes to be general officer he's trying to put them based on merit which i think is very good. leadership is going to change the attrition. what happens on attrition, part of it is combat casualties, that's only a small piece. desertion, if you look at why people desert, and they have instituted an attrition working group in the army, it went dormant for a while, we've instituted that back up to make sure we get after that issue, but when you look at it it is leadership, it is having a soldier assigned to the 215th he willman has been there four year, all he knows is combat after combat after combat, they have a red, amber, green thing, they can take leave, have training and then fight.

so they're just now starting to have that cyclic force generation that gives them that ability. wubs they get that in place i do think you'll see the desertion piece go way down. part of it is they're assigned to the 215th, you get down there and see no future about being rotated to another corps and you're always going to be on there because their personnel management, how they do talent management is not right. they're move fwargd that. but if you're in the 215th and you live up north, it takeous you days to get back there, or you may never get back there. or when you do get back there, your family is trying to harvest and you may go back 20 days past your leave, so you're a deserter. i think leadership will make a difference. mr. wenstrup: those sound like logical things to address. if i may, just one more quick

question. what percentage of the medical care being given in theater right now is coming from american personnel would you estimate? general campbell: for the afghans? mr. wenstrup: for the wounded warriors, is it u.s. physicians and surgeons taking care of the wounded predominantly? general campbell: they have their own medical staff. i a sat down with their surgeon general, but they have regional hospitals and we have some advisors at different places that continue to work through that. but they only come to a coalition facility like a bagram if it's a very, very worst case they can't handle and that's been very few instances since i've been there. mr. wenstrup: thank you very, very much. we'll have an opportunity to meet with you in a classified setting later, and i appreciate it.

the chair: ms. tsongas. ms. tsongas: i've appreciated your knowledge and very nuanced testimony. i want to follow up on congresswoman bordallo's last comment. as a member of congress i've made six trips to afghanistan and four with delegation of women, generally three republican con gregs -- congresswomen and three democratic congresswomen and our goal really has been two-fold. it's been over mother's day so to thank our women soldiers, often we commiserate with them, know how hard it is to be away from home on mother's day, as it is for all those serving, but we've also had the real opportunity to see the gapes that have been made for women in afghanistan. and while they're not as widespread as we would like, i think kabul has been a prime -- a prime ben fish careary of them and other urban settings but nevertheless those gains have been real. your reports show that in terms of health care, access to

education, access to work, although, however limbed. so as we're drawing down, our concern really is that those gains are not somehow traded away. and as you talked about president ghani reaching out and referencing the taliban in his inaugural speech, i can tell you that as we meet with women over there, those comments send chills through them. because we know how terribly they suffered under the taliban regime. so i think our concern, our bipartisan concern, has become, you know, how do we protect the gains that have been made? and was we've -- and as we've talked today about some of the differences about afghanistan and iraq, it seems to me that one of them has really been the signing of the bilateral security agreement and that it has set up a very different framework. i think has given us leverage, a role, a role in afghanistan as it transitions to its next phase.

so i'm curious, while the security situation is really your role and many of these other gains have been investments that have come about through other parts of our presence there, how you see the united states role using its ongoing relationship with the government to make sure that, let's just say, negotiations do go forward with the taliban, how we make sure, he howe we use our leverage there, how you use your leverage representing the united states to make sure that women's gains remain on the table and they are somehow not traded away as others argue for a path forward in which the taliban are brought into the government. general campbell: ma'am, thank you for your visits, thank you for your question. i think leadership has a big deal here to play. again, i think the difference here is that president ghani and dr. abdullah are very committed to this.

it is written in their constitution. so as they work with the taliban, if there's reconciliation down the road i think one of the key parameters there will be if the constitution will hold and inside the constitution it talks about respect of women's rights. so again, i think with the first lady with president ghani, with the team at the embassy work the 30 or 40-plus ambassadors i interact with periodically they all have this upper most in their mind, comes up in different settings, different meetings i'm at. it's sort of a drum beat that president ghani, dr. abdullah and other senior ministries continue to hear and they understand how important it is that they abide by their constitution, where they want to go. i think leadership will make a difference and they understand that in my rem, in the security rem, what -- in my rem, the security rem everything is -- in my realm the security realm everything is conditions based. this is sort of the same way as we look forward in this area, it

could be conditions based and everything we do through different n.g.o.'s, we make conditions based and i think leadership wan make that happen. ms. tsongas: i remember a hearing we had here a woman who is a leader of one of the n.g.o.'s over there, said the first indication that things are not going well for women over there is the street if you stop seeing women on the street that does come back to the role of the afghan national police are you confident that they are up to the task and if not do you see how -- how would we challenge them to do it bet her general campbell: the police have done much better on integrating women into those in favor say aye force, they're doing much better now in understanding how they have to deal with communities and understanding community policing as we did a deep dive back in december on all the security, inside of kabul, we talked about the high profile attacks, one way of getting after that was having a police force that had community policing on their mind

and understood what that meant. as we mentioned earlier by one of the members, president ghani made a change on the district commanders inside kabul, made a change here. they've been talking about that for a while. he just did that. i think that will -- as i travel around the streets of kabul, the streets are bustling a lot of women are out and around and so that indicates that that continues to build. i think this will be a challenge for leadership, keeping a spotlight on this, having the international community make sure they understand how important it is, and if they don't continue to abide by this there's a conditionality you take away something. whether it's financial, they're very dependent on t right now. i think conditions have to go on this. i know they're working hard on this and are dedicated toward that. but there will be challenges as they move forward. and it's going to take time. as i talk about within their army they have a goal, a very hard goal of getting 10% into their army, they're less than 1%

today. trying to work toward that. but i look at my own army, after 239 years, we're at about 15%. so it's going to take time. it's harder based on the cultural differences they have there but i think they are committed to working at this very hard. ms. tsongas: thank you, general. thank you for your testimony. the chair: general i mentioned to you i thought the questions would be better starting from the bottom or the more junior members and i think the questioning has been excellent today. i think we've touched on a lot of topics. you've had a number of questions about isis or isil. and i realize that you're not here as a lawyer and that you haven't read, studied carefully the implications of what the president has proposed, and i heard you say that at this point, isis is a nascent threat although -- in afghanistan although one you're watching very carefully. but as we explore this aumf that

the president has requested for isis, thinking about how it would work for people like you, whether we're talking about afghanistan, syria, iraq or whatever, one of the concerns is that it has more restrictions on isis than the current aumf has on al qaeda. and some of these groups live side-by-side. and so to me, there's just a commonsense concern here that if you've got two different standards to go after two different terrorist groups, how do you have the intelligence to know which is which? and then operationally, how do you have -- you have to have a lawyer by your side to make every single decision. i mean, isn't that -- if it comes to be that way, and this is a big if, and again i'm not trying to put you on the spot either, but operationally would that not be a matter of concern? general campbell: sir, thanks

for ecle -- thanks for the question. any commander on the ground would tell you he wants as much flexibility as he can get. any policy that provides commanders on the ground the flexibility to make decisions in a timely manner is something that i would -- i'll be in favor of. you are right, though, the insurgents and i can only speak for afghanistan but the insurgents inside of afghanistan, in many cases feed off each other. and they're interrhetted in many different ways and you may have one that provides finance food, lodging to one one that may provide weapons and secure routes for another. but some fight each other internally. but also it is very, very tough as we take a hard look at it to separate some of these organizations, where what i do have right now is the authority to prosecute those that come after the coalition and that's how i take a look at it as i try to bend those is that those --

bin those, not by their status by by their conduct come after coalition forces. mr. thornberry thkspe reason we're in -- mr. thornberry: the reason we're in afghanistan to begin with is because that was the place a plot was launched that ultimately killed 3,000 americans. what can you tell us about your assessment of al qaeda's core ability to reconstitute itself were it not to be under constant pressure from us? general campbell: thanks again for that question. i think we have to make sure we understand the threat and how the threat will continue to evolve, the continued pressure we provide now with our very credible c.t. capable the very best in the world, i believe has prevented another attack on the homeland and i do believe if you don't have pressure, continued pressure on a.q. that it would

be a matter of time they would regenerate that capability. mr. tornbury: -- mr. thornberry: under the current draw down plan, would your ability to gather intelligence for the c.t. mission be significantly downgraded in this calendar year? general campbell: as i look at it i'd much rather go into a classified session with you to discuss that piece. mr. thornberry: i sure don't want to get into details -- general campbell: any time you go from one number to another you have to make very, very tough decisions on where you balance that and as i talked before force protection is up most in my mind. i.s.r. and other pieces do provide continued force protection for me.

and so, you know, i look at it very hard and i have to balance that and so those numbers, you've got to make some tough decisions on where you take that and then what i have to do if i don't feel comfortable with that, i have to make sure i come forward to my senior leadership and provide them what i believe the risk of force is and risk of mission. is mr. thornberry: i appreciate that. i'm thinking from a commonsense measure, if you're in fewer places around the country you have fewer opportunities to gather intelligence, including force protection and on counterterrorism mission as well which is of concern to me. just to clarify, and i think you answered this earlier all the high value terrorists who were in our custody have now been turned over to afghan custody correct? general campbell: not all afghan, they've been turned over to some other third countries as

well but i do not have any detainee i don't have detention authorities after 1ian. -- 1 january. mr. thornberry: they have all gone somewhere but not necessarily to afghans? yen campbell: that's correct. mr. thornberry: we had general austin here yesterday and i'm struck by the number of members on this committee on both sides of the aisle who have served in iraq and afghanistan and feel very strongly that they do not want the sacrifice that his been made in afghanistan to -- i hate to sago to waste but there is tremendous frustration at what's happened in iraq and you've got a sense of that today. i know from your service and from those who serve under you you share that determinations to

make sure that whether we're talking taxpayer dollars or american lives that the sacrifice is upheld and honored and that it is not wasted because of policy decisions. the only thing i'd request of you is as you watch this situation in afghanistan, probably closer than anybody else, if you believe that we are headed down the wrong path, i.e. headed down a path we went down in iraq, i know this committee expects and requests you to raise a flag to us as well as your chain of command and say, this is headed in the wrong path because this committee obviously shares what i have no doubt is your commitment to make sure that all of that sacrifice these last 14 years results in a

stable relatively peaceful afghanistan from which terrorists cannot, again, launch attacks against us. so i appreciate that, sir. you're welcome to say anything you want. mr. campbell: sir, absolutely. i'm committed to that. that's what i owe my leadership in congress, to give you the best advice going forward. thank you for your leadership as well. mr. thornberry: thank you, sir. appreciate you answering our yeses today. with that the hearing stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there's also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of

congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress best access on c-span c-span2 c-span radio and c-span.org. >> earlier today the supreme court heard oral arguments in the case of king vs. burwell which looks at the health care law and subsidies provided to those envoled in fall -- enrolled in federally funded exchanges. we heard from several people involved in it, including pam hurst, the wife of doug hurst, one of the plaintiffs. >> hi, my name is pam hurst, i'm here with my husband doug.

decisions made here in washington directly affect middle class families like ours and we believe it's time that though who have been hurt by washington take a stand. that's why doug joined the case. we never imagined we would end up at the supreme court. but that just shows you how important this case is not just for us, but for others around the country who are affected by obamacare. there are millions of americans who have lost their plans or their doctors or who, like doug and i, are forced by the internal revenue service to either buy insurance we don't want or face a tax penalty. we want americans to have options. we believe there is a better way to take care of people who need help. but there is no reason to force millions of us to pay tax

penalties if we don't join a government program. we elect our state and national leaders to write laws. we do not elect the i.r.s. we believe preventing the i.r.s. from writing our health care laws is the right thing to do for our family and our country. this is why we are here. what the internal revenue service has done isn't fair, it isn't right, and it isn't legal. we look forward to the supreme court's decision and hope the court rules to protect our choice and the laws that govern our nation. thank you. >> that was just some of the reaction following today's argument before the supreme court in the case king vs.

burwell, which looks at the health care law and subsidy prossvided to those enrolled in federally run exchanges. see more reaction tonight at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. tomorrow on "washington journal" former undersecretary of state nicholas burns looks at current forbe policy challenges for the u.s. after that, john wanderlich breaks down the controversy over hillary clinton's use of personal emails in her years as secretary of state. plus your phone calls facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. earlier today, during the white house briefing, we heard more about hillary clinton's use of personal emails and whether her conduct is consistent with the federal records act. this portion is about 15 minutes.

>> just, i wouldn't -- this is all sort of interesting. not sure if that's really true. i'm doing my best to make it interesting. >> if you have people reporting to you here at the white house one of your employees came to you and said, i love technology, i'm -- i've got like an old p.c. sitting in my apartment, and i'd like to run a mail server using linux on it and plug it into my fios wireless and i'd like to use that full time instead of my w.h.o. email address to conduct all the business i conduct with reporters and other people in the white house and the government, that would be ok with you? you would offer them guidance against it but at the end of the day if they wanted to do that,

that would be ok? >> i think i would strongly suggest they follow the guidance of white house attorneys and use their official government address. if they didn't it would be against the guidance that i have directly given them but i don't know that it would be inconsistent with the federal records act or the presidential records act. this is pertinent. this is the context by which people are asking question. whether or not she was following the law here. >> so let's set that aside. if the federal records act is a question of preserving documents and that's relevant maybe not interesting, but it is relevant. but there's security questions. regardless of whether or not something is kept for posterity, there's questions of, you know, i'm sending you an email, you're sending me an email, i'm emailing schultz, is somebody hack, is the content os that have information getting out, maybe schultz is emailing somebody you know, inside the government that has got a

classified document or got a secure document that should be secure, that has nothing do to the do with the records act that has to do with security issues and would it be ok for schultz to have his little serber on his linu xbox -- server on his linux box? >> i think you're greatly overestimating his technological prowess based on conversations he and i have had in the context of this line of questioning. >> but there are serious security issues. i'm just saying, aside from guidance and preservation of records, you're saying there's no way in which that would be wrong? >> well, let me get to a couple of points you raised in your question. i do think this is a -- think this is a line of question that's relevant. there's a separate email system that pertains to classified information. this question about classified information being passed around an these kinds of email systems that is certainly not supposed

to occur and frankly raises much more significant problems than compliance with the federal records act. so there is an entirely separate classified system for transmitting classified information. >> if they had access to some kind of email address on that system that's separate from the one we're talking about? >> that's -- i don't know the answer to that question. i don't have an email, a classified email address and so i wouldn't have been -- >> but there are still sensitive documents that you guys wouldn't want to be going around. >> that's true. and we do take cybersecurity very seriously. and i know that the private sector does as well. and that obviously, you know, the president put forward legislation related to signer security to try to not just strengthen the defenses of private sector email networks or

computer networks more generally but also try to strengthen the defenses of the computer networks including the email networks of the government. so -- of the federal government. so it's hard for me to assess what sort of vulnerability may have been created by the establishment of a separate network. you know, obviously even large net works like ones that i operate on and ones that employees of the state department operate on are not invulnerable to intrusion. we've talked about the fact that there has been activity of concern detected on what orse are very strong federal government computer systems. so i guess the point is that we certainly are mindful of security online, some people call it cyberhygiene, i think that's a strange term but it's

one people try to be mindful of to ensure we're doing everything we can to protect our cybersecurity but this is something that doesn't just have an impact on the federal government, there are private sector institutions that are also grappling with the question as well. >> what you just said about cybersecurity and the fact that even a network as secure as the white house or the state department or other parts of the government or big corporations can be hacked, that is exactly why everybody is raising questions about the idea that somebody could be operating whether it was a gmail account or an aol account or their own private hosted thing or something, server at their house. that raises questions. those systems are even less secure potentially. so -- >> i don't know that i could reach that assessment. i don't know that i could reach that assessment. i think this is a place where i think your line of inquiry may

be more interesting than other lines of inquiry. but it is probably a good discussion for a computer science expert to examine. i could imagine the case -- i'm certainly not a computer science expert but i can imagine a scenario where you'd sigh cey that a smaller network is less likely to attract the attention of hackers or others who might want to do harm. >> but if it had the name clintonemail.com, that might attract. >> again a computer expert my be better equipped to talk to you. we've been ensuring compliance with the federal records act and more generally ensuring we are putting in place all the cyberdefenses we can to protrie to protect the security of government information. >> do the taxpayers of the united states pay for the devices that ms. clinton used as secretary of state and did they pay for the system that she

maintained at her home? >> you should check with secretary clinton's team, i don't know the answer to that. i'm not aware of all the details of the arrangement. >> can you preview the president's advance. >> i can tell you the president does intend to travel to south carolina on friday. he's looking forward to spending some time at benedict college in columbia, south carolina. this will be an opportunity for him to talk about middle class economics and meet with some students that are trying to equip themselves with the skills they'll need to compete in a 21st century global economy. never before has a college education been more important to getting the kind of good-paying middle class jobs that previous generations relied on for success and the president is interested in making sure that more persons -- more americans and more middle class families

have the opportunity to send their kids to college to get that the skills and training and pursue those kinds of jobs. the president will have more to say about this on friday. i'd also note that friday is also the day when the latest jobs numbers from the department of labor, the president may have an opportunity to talk about that as well. >> back on the email question you said the guidance is to use your official government email address for official business, you happen to use personal email a time or to preserve it by forwarding it to your government address or maybe making a copy of it and submitting it to the agency. let me ask you another more specific let's say you were working here in the federal government and you worked for four years and during that time you sent tens of thousand ofse mails from your personal email, does it qualify as meeting that requirement if you don't turn them in until almost two years after you leave office? >> well, again --

>> or are you supposed to do this in kind of realtime. >> the agencies themselves have been tasked with setting up guidelines for how to comply with the federal records act. what i can tell you is based on the legislation that the president signed into law at the end of last year it clarified those guidelines and standardized them across agencies. they were more specific about how in the time frame in which individuals should ensure that information kept on their personal email system should be moved over to the official email system. >> let's talk about the guidelines at the white house and go back to eric schultz, if we're going to use him as the example. would it pass the test for you? would he be abiding by your guidelines if he was using your personal account and then not turning over those emails until you know, i mean, in some cases not until five or six years late her he works for four years, doesn't turn over anything, and then nearly two years after he

leaves, is it ok to just then say, ok, here's, let's say, 55,000 pages of email? >> eric is a prolific emailer and the guidance that he has gotten and i'm confident that he has followed is to ensure that he is primarily using his official government email address. and that is -- that is the guidance he's been given from -- by white house lawyers and that's guidance that he carefully follows. again it's slightly different because the presidential records act and the way that it governs the preservation of records at the white house does vary in some complicated ways from the federal records act but the fact is that there -- it is the responsibility of the agencies to establish these guidelines as a result of legislation that the president signed into law at the end of last year, those guideline across the agencies have been collar fid. >> but let me just make a final point here.

if secretary clinton had been on the white house staff, been a senior advisor or maybe the national security advisor, chief of staff whatever, she'd been working in the white house there's no way she would have been in compliance with the guidelines you have just outlined if she'd spent four years emailing people from a private account and in the turning over anything until nearly two years after she left office. >> there are two things, had she worked at the white house she'd have been covered by the presidential records act as opposed to the federal records act and she would have gotten guidance from the white house that was much more specific i assume because the guideness d -- guidance i got at the white house when i started was very specific about the use of official government email when conducting official government business. i can't speak to the guidance she may have received when she first started at the state dfment but it may have been different than that. ultimately, the responsibility of individuals who have worked in the federal government is to ensure that they're preserving federal records properly and in ways consistent with the federal

records act. based on what we've heard from secretary clinton's team that's what they've done. >> keeping your records at home on a server you created that qualifies as preserving them? keep themming back at home and then not turning them over until nearly two years after leaving office. she kept those. but she kept them. so we have to completely trust her word that they were all kept and none were deleted, that she was keeping a full accounting of her emails, that counts as preserving? >> to go to the process of how they were preserved and if any were deleted, when i'm talking about saying they're properly preserved an maintained i'm talking about them being preserved and maintained at the agency. so they're properly preserved and maintained when her team goes through and pulls the emails related to her official government responsibilities and sending them to the state department to be properly reserved and -- preserved an

maintained there. to it is the state department that has the responsibility to make sure they're being responsive. >> if her emails were not properly preserved and retained until they were turned over to the state department system of for those four years where she was serving as secretary of state she was not properly retaining them and preserving those emails? >> what i'm suggesting is you would have to talk to her team about the way they maintain those records in those four years. when i'm talking about making sure they're maintained in compliance with the federal records act i'm talking about they will being properly turned over to the state department as they were. >> not until after she left office. >> well, it's -- the reports are she turned those emails over to the state department just within the last few months. >> right. so i want to come back to the question being address and i tried to follow up on to see if there's been a change since yesterday, does the white house believe that hillary clinton broke any laws here? >> again, john, based on what we know about the situation, it is clear that tech se -- secretary

clinton's team has gone to great lengths to collect the emails on her personal email account this relate to government work and turned them over to the state department so the state department could preserb and maintain them >> tonight on c-span, reaction to today's supreme court argument. the justice department finds evidence of racism in the ferguson missouri police department. and a house hearing on ukraine's fight against russian backed separatists. today the supreme court heard oral arguments. kimberly leonard writes that the courts seem to be divided along partisan lines over the question of whether the affordable care act authorizes subsidies for consumers who buy insurance through federal exchanges. we will bring you the arguments.

now, today's reaction to the case from outside the court. we will hear from attorneys who argued the case and wrote briefs on both sides. >> hi, my name is pam hearst, i am here with my husband doug. decisions made here in washington directly affect middle class families like ours and we believe it's time that though who have been hurt by washington take a stand. that's why doug joined the case. we never imagined we would end up at the supreme court. but that just shows you how important this case is not just for us, but for others around the country who are affected by obamacare. there are millions of americans who have lost their plans or their doctors or who, like doug and i, are forced by the

internal revenue service to either buy insurance we don't want or face a tax penalty. we want americans to have options. we believe there is a better way to take care of people who need help. but there is no reason to force millions of us to pay tax penalties if we don't join a government program. we elect our state and national leaders to write laws. we do not elect the inch r.s. we believe preventing the inch r.s. from writing our health care laws is the right thing to do for our family and our country. this is why we are here. what the internal revenue service has done isn't fair, it isn't right, and it isn't legal.

we look forward to the supreme court's decision and hope the rule tissue and hope that the court rules to protect our choice and the laws that govern our nation. thank you. >> is there a better way to cover the uninsured without some kind of subsidies? >> i'm mike carver, i argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case. very gratified that the court had a full and candid exchange of viewpoints. i believe our case was very compelling so i'm hopeful and confident that the court will recognize the merits of our statutory interpretation and not let the i.r.s. rewrite the plain language of the statute. thank you. >> were you concerned about justice kennedy's question? >> justice kagan and i had a candid exchange but there are other justice.

as i said approximately four types i very much want them to read the statute as a whole because it dramatically reinforces our point principally the point that a clear purpose of the statute was to encourage states to establish their own exchanges which is dramatically undermined and frustrated by the i.r.s. rule which provides subsidies regardless of whether the states do that required task. >> how concerned were you about justice kennedy's question about your reading of the law would be the federal government coercing the states into creating exchanges? >> right, but after the conversation i think it became clear in everyone's mind that this reading would be far less coercive than the sthroferingse medicaid statute they'd upheld in nfib and it would be a greater intrusion on state sovereignty to accept the government's positions because

this would allow the federal government to union latrlly impose the employer mandate on state and local employers as well as other employers in the state. >> you made different arguments about a year ago. >> last time we were arguing that affordable care act should not be the law of the land. here we are arguing that it should be the law of the land and shouldn't be dramatically altered by an unelected bureaucracy. >> do you see any contradiction in that? >> i think it's perfectly consistent. in both circumstances i have to accept the court's decision that this is now the law of the land. now that it's the law of the land we need it to be neutrally and fairly interpreted. that's exactly why we're here, to vindicate the rule of law. >> you say it should be the life of the land but couldn't it be a death nell to the affordable care act? >> you've seen the poplar press. seems the leaders in congress are well prepared to deal with transition issues and i assume

the states if they don't will have incentive to go ahead and create the exchanges they would have created but for the i.r.s.'s continue rah vention of the law. >> how do you cover millions of americans who might lose their health insurance without some kind of subsidy or whatever you're going to call it? >> if you're arguing there's a compelling policy reason to help these people i'm our -- i'm sure the elected officials at the state or federal level will listen to that and the court is not prepared or equipped to say they make policy rather than the legislative branch. >> what about the issue that the states clearly did not feel they had this -- >> literally bizarre. they had three years, they read the statute, the only reason they were confused about it was because the i.r.s. pulled a bait and switch on it. it said state and federal. if they'd implemented the law the state woufs known what the deal was in the statute. it's a little -- it takes a lot of chutzpah to come in and say

since since we changed the statute and caused 2/3 of the states not to have state exchanges that's an argument in favor of our regulation, which is what the government was saying. >> are you surprised by how the argument went today in any way? >> i'm never surprised by vigorous questioning by well informed and articulate justices because that's certainly the norm. >> are you at all concerned about this causing the insurance system to collapse as some people fear? >> if the theory is that insurance premiums will skyrocket for everybody, that simply confirms my political point that that would mean not only people receiving the subsidies but people in low income strata would demand that either congress or the states do this. the difference is that it would be done through the legislative process rather than the i.r.s. hijacking the legislative process. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> i'm scott pruitt, the attorney general from oklahoma.

as the attorney general in oklahoma i was a part of leading the first case on this in september of 2012. i do want to speak to the states' interests. but first i want to thank you to the hursts for their comments today, the courage it took to participate in this case and i think they should be shown appreciation for the courage they've shown. and i want to say thank you to michael who has shown great leadership, great accruemen, great advocacy in this case. but as a state, the state of oklahoma, like 36 other states across the country, had a very clear choice to make and made a decision not to set up a state health care exchange this issue is not just about subsidies. as michael indicated, when you invite the subsidy into your state, you're inviting the employer mandate in your state and the individual mandate enforcement. s that comprehensive challenge based upon a single section of law. it goes to the very structures of the federal government's ability to enforce the law. when states made the decision over the past -- the last couple

of years, whether it set up an exchange or not, they made the decision understanding the policy consequences of subsidies, employer mandate penalties and the enforcement of individual mandate. the policy implications of a victory are significant. as michael indicated, both the state and federal government stand ready to respond to whatever policy implications may occur by the court doing what the statute intended, doing exactly what the statute says which is if the state chooses to set up an exchange. you have 37 states who said no and that should be respected. it is not a power of the inch r.s. to disregard the plain reading of a statute, to offer a rule that they thue was inconsistent with the text of the statute. that's what the case is about today. this is an adherence to the rule of law. the argument that was presented by michael and the plaintiffs and the petitioners is spot on with respect to the text of the statute and the intent and decision that the states have made. thank you for the time today.

>> my name is elizabeth wydra, i represent the members of congress who authored the law and more than 100 state legislators who helped implement the law and who support the obama administration's case. i'm join pid by neil, the former acting solicitor general. >> and a partner at hogan and logans. the court did what it does questioned both sides. i told you yesterday i thought it would be a good day for ethe government, i would say it's an extraordinary day for the government with a magnificent performance by the solicitor general and questions that heavily indicated that the court is likely to rule in favor of the government. it's often hard to tell in oral argument. they're asking tough questions of both sides. but i have to say this is a pretty extraordinary day for the government. it began really about five

minutes into mr. carvin's argument. my friend mr. carvin emphasizes what looks like a very strong point, the law says the words established by state in it to get subsidies. shouldn't that mean that only state-run exchanges have subsidies? within five minutes justice breyer said, hey, we're not reading the constitution, we're reading a tax code. it has defined terms and those defined terms quite clearly say that when the federal government runs an exchange it is such an exchange just like the state one and should be eligible for the subsidies and when mr. barillo took the podium i think you saw that heavily hammered, the idea that this isn't an ambiguous provision, it's a provision that everyone understood at the time provide subsidies to both federal and state exchanges. >> thank you. i want to emphasize one of the points that justice kennedy made today which is that the law was written by congress to provide a affordable health care to all

americans and to provide for state flexibility. but ironically, it's michael carvin and the petitioners' argument that would be coercive to the states, not respect the states' choice in this matters. congress specifically aloud for flexibility for states to set up their own exchange or to allow the federal government to run those exchanges in their stead. we believe that if the court follows the plain text of the law, if they follow their clear precedents on the idea that you read a law in its entirety and in its context just as tissue justice kagan made very strong points about the need to read the law in context, it's clear that tax credits are available to all americans no matter which state they live in, no matter which exchange new york matter which entity runs the exchange in their state. we saw members of congress in the audience and they know very well what they wrofmente we filed a brief in the case indicating to the court that

everyone at the time understood the law to allow for tax credits regardless of whether the state or federal government facilitated exchanges and even opponents of the law, you know congressman paul ryan was in the audience today he was on record during the time of enactment saying there wasn't any difference between state or federal run exchanges and that what mattered was your income eligibility for these tax credits, not who ran the exchanges. we believe it was a great day for the government and we are very confident in the results. >> just to pick up on one point elizabeth said, mr. barrilli mad an important point when he said these parts of the act weren't passed in middle of the night. they were things that had been debated for months openly in committee and not a single member of congress adopted or said a word about what these challenges are saying today. this is a novel interpretation discovered as justice kagan said a year and a half after the law was enacted. it's not something congress had in mind at the time of the act.

>> how worried were you by justice kennedy's question? >> i think it goes to the absurd interpretation that the petitioners are asking the court to adopt. it makes no sense that congress would have written the law to coerce the states when they were intentionally trying to give them a choice and also that they would have tried to coerce the states in a way that no one understood to actually be co-sersing the states at the time. it's not a good to threat if you don't articulate the threat and no one understands there's a threat being made until a year and a half lit -- later. i was heartened by his taking seriously the concern to the imbalance in state and federal relationship that would result from the interpretation being pushed by the petitioners. >> i suspect the government was hardened by justice kennedy's question which said if your interpretation is adopted, won't that really unconstitutionally coerce the states? but more heartening was the

combination of justice kennedy's question read against justice kagan's preceding question which was, hey, if congress is trying to coerce the states why dowled would they do it in this obscure provision about coverage? that's not the way to do it system of it really does look like a gotcha game that the challengers have brought today with no gotcha ultimately at the end of the day. >> let's say for your point of view -- [inaudible] >> that's beyond what -- i'm the lawyer so i'm not going to get into that. >> but we go do have studies showing there thereby disruption to the health care marget as a whole. economists have filed briefs noting there would be a death spiral resulting and you know as solicitor general said today it's beyond belief to think that this congress would do something to fix it. >> what does that mean?

literally was what does it mean to the average person in california who happens to be covered by the exchange there? >> well so the question regarding the death spiral that would result in the states that idea that costs would rise people would become uninsured and you know, we have experts filing briefs on this matter you know, literally quantifying the number of people who could lose their lives as a result of losing coverage if the tax credits are taken away. >> but they wouldn't be taken away in states that have exchanges, what's what -- that's what i'm asking? >> you have to read the expert briefs with the economists and experts who have weighed in with the court. everybody who has a stake in the health care system, doctors, patients, nurses, insurance companies, hospitals have filed in support of the government's position in this case and in support of the availability of tax credits. >> let me say one word about this. i represent the american hospital association. they filed a brief in this case with the opening line saying the health insurance of nine million americans plus are at stake in

this case, all potentially taken away. these are people who have never had insurance before, many have never had insurance before, for the first time they've been able to have it under the affordable care act and if this novel interpretation by the challengers is accepted by the supreme court, it's going to be deaf stating for the consequences to americans and their health. >> we do have an expert who can speak shortly about the death spiral consequences. my name is elizabeth wydra. i represent the members of congress and state legislators who filed a brief in support of the administration. i work with the constitutional accountability center. >> i'm -- what? i'm dr. emanuel. i happen to be on the brief with the economists system of let's just explain the death spiral scenario.

imagine that you have 11 million people now in the exchanges losing their subsidies and you have the simultaneous requirement that you cannot exclude people or you have to sell insurance to people who have pre-existing conditions who are likely to be more expensive. the healthy people who are getting subsidies, who will no longer be getting subsidies will stop buying insurance. you're going to concentrate the people who are buying insurance are as those people who have pre-existing conditions and are likely to have high medical bills and will drive up the premium for insurance. more people will exit the marget -- the market because the premium will be too expensive for them and you will then again raise the premium because you'll have very sick people buying insurance policy. the consequence is an unsustainable market. this is why the insurance industry does not oppose -- oppose this is position. it will kill the insurance market without the states, without a state-based exchange.

it is very destabilizing. it's been well establishes because no exchange worked without subsidies before. we tried exchanges before. and they would not work. and i think as correctly put by sliss for general birelli, the federal exchanges then would basically be a shelf game. they wouldn't -- they'd be a shadow exchange no one would guy and no one would sell on those exchanges. >> what would be the ripple effect in other states? >> it probably -- insurance is done state by state. they would be relatively insulated but you're talking about 34 states in the majority of the united states. >> despite the fact that many insurance companies and hospitals are multistate or interstate corporations, again it wouldn't affect -- >> well, you can still have insurance in states and a lot of states have players that are only in their state. a lot of blue cross and blue shield plans, for example are state-based. but it would, the insurance companies are very, very nervous

about this because it would totally destabilize the system. let me make one more point. one of the reasons congress can't easily solve this problem the way justice scalia suggested is there is a big scoring issue. you would have to find about $350 billion to actually remedy the problem based on the way the congressional budget office scores this. and there is no way of finding $350 billion to solve this problem. it is a very difficult problem. not trivial as justice scalia suggested, they can just pass a law and say the federal exchange works in the state. there's a huge cost to that monetarily because suddenly if the subsidies aren't part of the affordable care act, you have to find the money to pay for these new subsidies in a new way. >> what's your first name? >> ezekiel emanuel. >> what did you think -- >> i thought the government did an extraordinary job. i agree with neil, i think don

birelli was forceful in this and provided a coherent explanation for why the interpretation they're offering is the right one. thank you very much. >> we will bring you audio of the oral argument in its entirety on friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. now, more reaction to the case -- josh earnest was asked about what would happen if the supreme court rules against the administration. >> the practical matter -- it is important for people to understand that there is no contingency plan that could be implemented that would prevent the catastrophic damage that would be done by undermining the

affordable care act with an adversarial ruling. we have been pretty clear about that. there have been a number of questions we received -- if the case goes against you, what will the administration do, planning to do? if that eventuality comes about? the truth is that there are no easy answers -- there is no simple step, no obvious that that anybody can take that would prevent this catastrophic damage from taking place. we would see millions of people lose their health insurance. we would see prices go through the roof. there is not a whole lot that the government can do about it other than congress passing legislation to fix it. but i think we are all pretty realistic about the likelihood of that. we have majorities in the house and senate that a, struggle mightily to do even the simplest

most politically popular things like funding the department of homeland security, and b they have font to thumbnail -- fought tooth and nail to undermine the affordable care act. it is not entirely clear to me why, but that is their position nonetheless. i have never encountered anybody who has said, here is an easy way we can avoid this problem other than through the legislative path which is not one that is feasible. >> while attorneys argued the case before the supreme court, senate leaders discussed the affordable care act. here are majority leader mitch mcconnell in minority leader harry reid talking about the hair of carefully -- the health care law. >> across the street, the supreme court will hear arguments today in an case. it is the latest reminder of the law that is unwieldy as it is unworkable.

obamacare. obamacare has been one rolling disaster after another for middle-class americans. first, it attacked seniors by raising medicare to finance more government spending. then a canceled health plans for many who had been told they would be able to keep the plans they liked. and who could forget the website debacle? the hits have kept on coming ever since. fewer choices, higher cost, increased burdens, and even more headaches at tax time. we now know that the obama administration said -- sent in accurate information to nearly one million people. america's middle class deserves a lot better than to hurt over obamacare. we have heard a lot of predictions about what might happen if the court finds or the plaintiffs.

for we have also seen republican ideas about how to help americans that may be harmed again by obamacare's broken promises. republicans think it is better to give americans and states that read them to choose what is right for them, rather than trying to impose costly mandates from washington, like obamacare. regardless of how the supreme court rules, i look forward to continuing to work with my republican colleagues. well obamacare is a law that is all about higher cost some broken promises, republicans think health care should be about helping middle-class americans instead. >> the democrat leader. >> most issues that come before

this body are complex and nuanced. rarely are we faced with simple issues but today we have a simple, clear-cut issue before us. it is as straightforward as anyone could be, anyone question. do you support american workers are do you not support american workers? under our law workers have the right to unionize and have their voices heard in the workplace. workers choose for themselves whether or not to form a union. last year the relations board took important steps to modernize union election procedures. common sense, simple advancements. the rule change is for workers and good for business. this whole fight doesn't deal with is versus workers -- you have to search log and hard to find a business that opposes work. it is all the antiunion rhetoric of the republicans.

reforms are already being pushed forward and it allows a platform . it allows communications. yet today, senate republicans -- this afternoon they will vote on a resolution to undo those commonsense reforms. republicans think they are striking a blow against labor unions but what they are really doing is undermining the american worker, american families. american workers and their families have come to rely on the many benefits provided by higher wages, safe working conditions, decent health care. it is one of the most prosperous times in the american history came in about --

up at lake tahoe and all over the state, we ensure through unions safe working conditions, certainly for the miners, and also provide quality health coverage to educators statewide. i want to be very clear. this is about who the republicans are attacking -- the middle class. each time republicans are road blocked through workers i support american families, american workers, the middle class. senate democrats support the middle class. we will vigorously fight any attempt to weaken worker protections. i will comment briefly on the republican leaders who are trying to --

come to the floor once again and try to minimize the disastrous attacks on obama care. -- on obamacare. the houses tried 57 times to repeal the law, and each time the result is the same. the definition of insanity is someone who does something over and over again and gets the same result. it is insane what they have done and it is insane what they are trying to do here in the senate. there is no question about the case before the united states supreme court. the language is clear. almost 2 million people will lose health insurance and we have seen over the last few days the terrible things that would happen to families.

my friends the republican leaders talk about doing -- getting back to the insurance industry. how would that work if you have a pre-existing disability? they set arbitrary limits about how much they would pay. it was a time of toil for families who were trying to ensure their boys and girls mothers and fathers. i would hope the supreme court will listen to the will of the american people and the will of the united states senate, we all knew. the law is very clear. the supreme court should follow the law. >> on the next "washington journal," nicholas burns on foreign-policy challenges facing the united states, including the u.s. relationship with israel, negotiations over iran's nuclear