new information about what the fbi has uncovered as it probes a suspected terror plot. the man had video of one of country's busiest transportation hubs, what else we have learned. >> police arrested a suspect in the killing annie le. one thing they still don't have is a motive. why they say we may never know what led to her death. the politics of race, some say it's a major factor in the criticism president obama has gotten lately. what did the president think about it. you're watching hln news and

views. we're learning more about the questioning of zazi. they started questioning him after raids in new york and denver. the 24-year-old had a video of new york's grand central terminal which sees half million visitors per day and in its shops and restaurants as well. we're hearing he made a stunning admission during questioning. jean has the latest developments. >> caller: first a couple of new pieces of information about the investigation. a spokeswoman for u haul says the fbi searched a uhaul location in queens new york last thursday. y u haul is cooperating. two sources tell cnn najibullah zazi had in his possession video of grand central station when he traveled to new york shortly before 9/11. in a contributed to law enforcement fears that a plot

against a transit system might be in the works. now as to what's happening here in denver today, zazi was scheduled to come in for a fourth day of questioning by the fbi. he is not going to be here today. we're getting differing renditions of what happened in the previous three days of questioning. an administration official familiar with the matter tells cnn that zazi did admit to having ties with al qaeda. zazi's attorney tells cnn that is not the case. author folsom said he did not admit that or attend an al qaeda training camp. he was allowed to go home and resting comfortably there. according to administration official, the government was exploring what charges it might be able to bring against him and said the possibility of a plea bargain was there somewhere down the road. meanwhile, the attorney general of the united states eric holder

said in his speech he did not believe there was any imminent danger and fbi agents in new york in denver and in other cities were working around the clock on this matter. denver, colorado. an intense manhunt is under way in washington state for an escaped killer who is mentally ill. phillip arnold paul walked away from a group of patients on thursday and state officials are facing intense criticism for allowing paul to be on the field trip to begin with. he was committed to a mental hospital after he admitted to killing an elderly woman in 1986. paul says he killed her because he thought she was a witch. president obama will host g-20 leaders in pittsburgh next week. in the weekly address, the president said the summit will be a good chance for review of what each country has done to fight the economic downturn.

also said although global economic conditions are stabilizing, that is not enough. >> because of the steps taken by our nations and all nations, we can now say we've stopped our economic free fall. we also know that stopping the bleeding isn't nearly enough. our work is far from over. we know we still have a lot to do here at home to build an economy producing good jobs for all of those looking for work today. >> and republicans are keeping up their full-court press on president obama's overhaul plan. in the party weekly address, sue my rick said it would lead to something they don't want. >> every family that confronts a sear your illness, should have access of the highest care at the lowest cost with no delays. replacing your current health care with a government-run system is not the answer. these so-called health care

reform bills have different names. a public option. a co-op, a trigger. make no mistake, knees are all gateways to government-run health care. >> the senate finance committee is expected to start voting tuesday on a health care proposal. we may never know why yale graduate student annie le was killed. new haven police chief says unless the suspect confesses or it comes out at trial, it is not clear what happened in that school research lab. lab tech raymond clark the third is charged with murdering le. local medias investigators were suspicious about clark even before le's body was found. they say he was seen leaving the building looking distraught and came back to clean and hide lab equipment later found to have blood spatters. randi kaye is covering the case.

>> reporter: he was a lab technician, low man on the totem pole keeping track of the animals that annie and her team were using for research. he reportedly according to some media reports did text her having to do with the condition of the cages that her mice were in. but as far as their relationship. it's unclear at this point. faculty members say they saw each other in the hallway but just how much they had to do with each other is still unclear. police are still gathering evidence in the case. a car was towed friday night from the motel clark was staying in before the arrest. the state trooper said it was related to the murder case and clark remains in jail on $3 million bond. authorities say they have found another bone. right now they can't say if it's human or not. they are charged with kidnapping jaycee dugard 18 years ago. they are searching the garrido's

backyard for possible clues in the disappearance of two other girls who vanished in the late 80s. they have no evidence tieing the garridos to the other disappearances but also say the garridos can't be eliminated as suspects. there is a new development in the search for a missing florida girl. local media in florida are reporting authorities are searching a pond in connection with the disappearance of haleigh cummings, they say the search is a result of the tip police received in the case but not connected to the arrest of hank cross lynn jr. she is now married to haleigh's father. katherine jackson can challenge the men who control her son's estate without having to risk losing it all. a provision in the 2002 will says any beneficiary who

contests it could lose benefits. the jackson family attorney says they have questions about the men named in the two will. we learned earlier this week that jack and her grandchildren get more than $86,000 a month from the estate. the woman that got her eyesight back thanks to one of here teeth is back home in mississippi. there was an excited welcoming home committee on hand when kay returned from miami, where shed the landmark surgery. she has nine grandchildren, seven borp after they lost her sight. doctors fashioned one of her teeth into a mem brain graft and it holds a prosthetic lens in place and allows her to see for first time in nine years. she'll be back in for a checkup

in nine weeks. an outburst and protesters papting him as a socialist and not american. what role does race play? you'll hear how the president answers that question on hln news and views. bicycle, what are we waiting for? the flowers are blooming. the air is sweet. and zyrtec® starts... relieving my allergies... 2 hours faster than claritin®. my worst symptoms feel better, indoors and outdoors. with zyrtec®, the fastest... 24-hour allergy medicine, i promise not to wait as long to go for our ride. zyrtec® works fast, so i can love the air™.

president obama doesn't believe his harshest critics were motivated by race. congressman joe wilson screamed out to the president, you lie. in an interview with john king, the president says many predecessors came under harsh attack mainly when they were working for change. >> in recent weeks people have raised pretty serious questions, the big rally in town, signs talking about afro socialism and you lie shouted at you during a

nationally teleadvised address. do you see racism in this? >> as i've said in the past, are there people out there who don't like any because of race? i'm sure there are. that's not the overriding issue here. i think there are people who are anti-government. i think there are -- there's been a longstanding debate in this country that is usually that much more fierce during times of transition. when presidents are trying to bring about big changes. the things said about fdr are similar to what was said about me, he was a socialist. things said about ronald reagan when he was trying to reverse some of the new deal programs were pretty vicious as well.

>> the president fielded similar questions during a flurry of interviews for tomorrow sunday morning talk shows and on monday president obama will appear on the late show with david letterman. republicans who may run for president in three years are addressing a gathering of christian conservative activists, the session will also see the first straw poll of the 2012 presidential campaign. former governor mike huckabee and mitt romney and newt gingrich and rick santorum and tim pawlenty have put in appearances there. former alaska governor sarah palin declined because her son is returning from duty in iraq this weekend. former miss california got a warm welcome. prejean claims it cost her the title but she believes there's a bigger crown in heaven waiting for her. the good news, water service

is back on for residents in suburban baltimore. check it out. we do mean massive, rushing water flooded 100 basements and caused a road to collapse and knocked out power to a thousand homes. hundreds of them were without power this morning. and it took about two hours to get the water shut off. baltimore city officials say it is part of a larger issue with failing infrastructure in many u.s. cities. this week the white house released a plan to improve the way it manages all oceans and coasts and great lakes. one member of the group says it is crucial to have a single body overseeing ocean policies range from natural security and shipping issues and conservation as well. the panel's recommendations include creating a national ocean council to coordinate issues surrounding the nation's

water ways. the council will replace a committee set up by president bush in 2004. i'm karen mcbeggin is. one of bull's-eye areas is right around this region of alabama. in some cases it looks like the computer models are suggesting between 5 and 10 inches of rain. readings are below normal across the deep south. look at this, billings, montana. expecting temperatures 5 to 15 degrees above where they should be for this time of year. and starting into sunday we'll start to see an offshore flow across the west coast. as a result. it looks like the fire danger will be increasing as high pressure builds in and winds blow offshore. in the meantime this area of low pressure stuck in place at least for the next 24 to 36 hours.

another weather system comes in and reinforces that already wet weather situation. for hln, i'm karen ma gin is. >> people living in an atlanta suburb are trying to figure out what to do about this massive sinkhole. 25 feet long and opened up thursday after several days of heavy rain. it's already taken out part of the sidewalk and curb and street. it is in a private development. the cost of filling it will fall to the homeowner's association. ahoy, it is international talk like a pirate day. head over to our website. you will find some help to really understand pirate speak. you can add maity to the end of your sentences and you can randomly say arrgh. check out more at

cnn.com/living. a race of violent man eating pythons could be brewing in the everglades, scientists are worried it's really happening. to nonnative breeds are being released in the swamps too often. if african pie nones breed with burmese, could be aggressive snakes big enough to prey on hum humans. it has exploded so fast, florida started a bounty hunt this summer. 18 snakes have been captured. >> in you're an unemployed sales and marketing person wharks do you do? a couple pays big bucks to try to land a huge opportunity. ♪ you're the one

♪ who's born to care this life was protected... ♪ seems you've always been right there ♪ this life was saved... ♪ soothing sadness ♪ healing pain and this life was made easier... ♪ making smiles appear again because of this life. nursing. at johnson & johnson, we salute all those who choose the life...

that makes a difference. ♪ you're a nurse ♪ you make a difference look closely at this video. people are crowded in the subway station and shots ring out leaving a federal security agent dead. the trouble started when police tried to stop a man from writing graffiti. there's the alleged gunman. a prosecutor says the man broke free and began shooting and then took cover on the train and kept firing. police arrested him several moments later. five people were wounded in this shooting. >> germany has raise the the terrorist alert level because of a new threat in al qaeda. the government says the increasing security measures especially in airports and train stations it says a new video

released by al qaeda yesterday suggests the group will hit germany in elections don't go the way it wants. some want to pull troops out of afghanistan. the video didn't say which political party should win but says if the german people decide to continue this war, they have sealed their fate. would you pay $5,000 to look for a job? that is how much a sacramento man and fiance paid to put up this billboard. with 100,000 cars driving by the billboard every day, he's bound to get noticed. >> it's only going to take one person that's high up in a business, either private or public that wants a good manager. this marketing strategy has generated a couple of calls. he hopes one will land him a new job. >> the jobs market took another hit last month.

42 states had net job losses in august, that is up from 29 in july. at least six states have the jobless rate fall mostly because people gave up their job searches. but that doesn't seem to be weighing on wall street too much. stocks ended higher again yesterday. great news there. the dow jones ended the the day up 36 points. >> government lawyers are trying to stop a controversial book project. online search engine google and the author's guild have reached an agreement to let google scan libraries of books and place them online. the justice department says it opposes copyright concerns. they are urging both sides to continue negotiating. if proper changes are made, the potential could be an important benefit for society. do you ever wonder all of people spending hours talking into those cell phones, do you

wonder if they are putting their lives in danger? a new study is raising the issue again on hln news and views. @y@ (announcer) romano's macaroni grill has a way to get things cooking..... at home. they're macaroni grill dinner kits, the restaurant favorites that'll ignite your senses. you get thpasta, special sauces and seasonings.

add your grilled chicken, cook for 20 minutes then top with our cheeses. for a meal that'll make any night feel special. romano's macaroni grill dinner kits. the restaurant favorites that let you.... stay in, and go all out. [ thunder rumbles ] what is the sign of a good decision? in the world of personal finance, it's massmutual. find strength and stability in a company that's owned by its policyholders. ask your advisor or visit massmutual.com. getting an early flu shot is the best thing you can do... to protect you and your loved ones from the flu. it's also one of the easiest things you can do... because walgreens is now offering seasonal flu shots... every day of the week with convenient hours guaranteed. so you can just stop in. our 16,000 dedicated pharmacists...

and take care clinic nurse practitioners... are waiting to help you beat the flu... in neighborhoods nationwide. at walgreens we want you to know, there's a way to stay well.

in which the security forces of that country are capable dealing themselves with whatever challenges to stability there are, then i think you've got s sustainable stability. what that will look like in afghanistan and again what the steps are to achieve it, i'm

simply not competent to provide. i do think we've got the people out there who can do that, and i think again that what the administration needs to do is to lay out that framework and then since i had the experience of testifying before congress, i would like to spread the opportunity to my current colleagues in the field to come and do the same. i do think that field view is extremely important. >> thank you. i have questions i won't get to both for both ends of the table. but i do want -- i probably have time for one more. i wanted to ask dr. lockhart a question about what is sometimes referred to as i was very impressed, as we always are, in august when i

visited both countries and saw not just in respect general mccrhrystal had for non-military folks, but how well integrated they were and how central they are to the mission. state department folks, the department of agriculture, d a, i probably let some out. -- dea. this is a hard question to answer but if you can do your best in a minute we have left. how many do you think, or do you have a sense of this metrics? he may have addressed this in your opening but i was not in the room. also, how do we get it right with regard to our international partners, who candidly are helping us a lot in a lot of significant parts of the world and others are not doing much to help us. if you can address that in terms of numbers or commitment, i know that is a hard-won -- i know

that is a hard one. >> one of the first principles to work from is what we are seeking to build is the space and tools for afghan leadership in the afghan ownership. i believe that while the key focus on the civilian side is institution building, it requires a small number of civilians. we need more civilians than there are at the moment. i probably would not want to put a number on it, probably not more than 1000. >> what we would need eventually or where we are now? >> if it is going to the u.s. leadership. there are tens of thousands of foreign civilians at the country, but most of them are fragmented among ngo's and agencies. what is required is a thorough look at skills gap on the afghan side. we should read here in our focus

to what it takes to rebuild -- we should regear our focus to what it takes to rebuild afghan training. if you're educating afghan state 11th you will not get a competent service. in terms of getting the international partnership right, i think that relates to an earlier comment that we should move away from the language of war, victory and loss, back to some of the original language used in the 2001 period of a global effort to assist the afghan people, establish stability. to assist the afghan people, established stability or legitimate governance. and then based on that, look at a division of labor and burden sharing. i think we need to perhaps look more to the economic multi lateral organizations like the world bank and the adb tho robu

approaches while a un mandate remains important and look at a division of labor with europe and what countries like gulf countries and japan can do to contribute as part of a global alliance. >> i had another question, but i'm out of time. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator casey, senator wicker. >> thank you, senator lugar. i want to get back to one of the many excellent points of senator lugar, that he mentioned during his extensive question and ask about the election. now, today is the 17th. we're supposed to hear some definitive results. i'm told the afghan central election commission has released the result showing that president karzai has received 54.62% of the vote.

now, the international committee is still waiting for the independent election commission to make its assessment. senator lugar raised the possibility that as many as one-third of president karzai's votes might be invalid. i wonder if any of you can tell me when we can expect to hear something from the independent election commission. in listening to the administration, that there's also a resignation that president karzai is going to be the president for the next term and that somehow those results will be allow ed to stand to th

extent that either he will be re-elected on the first go-around or he'll win a run off. i hope several of you can comment on this. let me start with dr. hosseini. you're hear on behalf of the unhcr i realize. but still, you've been in the area. you've talked extensively. i assume you've talked across the spectrum of the ethnic groups in afghanistan. so what is your assessment of the support among the populous for president karzai of their feeling with regard to the validity of the election results and what might happen? >> well, i think when you speak to ordinary afghans, there's no

question that they express some disappointment in the performance of the afghan government so far. i think many of them expected more. again, rightfully so. as far as the elections, clearly there have been some irregularities with these elections and they've been well publicized. precise scale of these irregularities and whether they will force a second round of the elections is up to the ecc and the isc to determine and they're examining the suspect ballots and doing a recount. in my view it's important obviously that this investigation be thorough, but also that it be relatively expeditious, and i say this as an individual and not with my unfcr hat on. i think it's to the detriment of

the country to have a long period of political paralysis. it's to the detriment of the legitimacy of the elections and i think it would exacerbate the afghan's people already high level of anxiety about the elections and cast doubt on the credibility of the outcome. so i think it must be done relatively quickly enough. of course, the outcome has to be acceptable to most afghans and have at least a semblance of credibility, a difficult task indeed. on the elections i do want to put the entire process in some kind of perspective and say that as flawed as the elections are, and we shouldn't compare a second ever presidential elections in afghanistan to the process here in the states or in france, let's be clear about that. but it was an extraordinary low jis tick achievement to even

hold the election, even more so that the last time around. 3,000 done kis carrying ballots. thousands of people who had to be trained in the middle of conflict in areas under the threat and intimidation of the taliban. hundreds of female searchers who had to pack down anybody in a berka to make sure it's not a man carrying a suicide jacket. from a logistic standpoint, it was an extraordinary achievement. the second point of perspective i want to offer is o for 30 years the traditional means of the transfer of power in afghanistan has been through violence, through the gun. with these elections, the afghans have an opportunity to demonstrate that those days are in the past and that they can affect a peaceful transition of power. maybe we in the international community ought not to rush to judgmental and we ought to wait

and let the afghans resolve this peacefully. >> ms. lockhart, would you like to comment about that? do you believe president karzai has majority support among the population of aftghanistaafghan? >> if the european union announced today they suspected that votes were invalid, then it will be demonstrated that the incumbent doesn't have majority support, and i agree with dr. hussein any that there's considerable anxiety amongst the population. what we're seeing on the moment in the ground is the electoral complaints commission investigating the irregularity, a process that may take several weeks. i very much agree that that process should be resolved as quickly as possible because the vacuum in leadership will be problematic on the ground. i think there are four options very quickly from here on.

one is to accept the victory of the incumbent. the risk of this approach is that the alliances with illegitimate forces that have been made i don't think will assure good enough governance over the coming months and years and may see a further deterioration in v governance. a second approach is to accept that and then have a robust counterinsurgency effort to build good governance bottom up. that hasn't been tried in the past. the jury will be open as to whether it can be successful. the third is to have a row best agreement on benchmarks on accountability going forward. i believe the afghan people will be looking for the international community to take a robust approach on asking for standards of accountability and benchmarks of reaching good governance. the last option would be to go back to the drawing board. if the ecc is to invalidate a

sufficient number of ballots or one or more of the candidates or the process as a whole, that will open the question of moving to a new agreement or bond-type agreement. >> i'm sure you agree it should be done expeditiously. do you have any idea when we might hear something definitive from the ecc? >> i believe that's specified in the ecc regulations, that they must report back within a specified amount of time after the 17th of september when results are declared. i believe that's a month. but i could check that. >> thank you. anyone else on the panel wish to touch on this? thank you. >> thank you senator wicker. senator webb? >> thank you, senator lugar. i would like to express my appreciation to the chairman and to you for having put together this extraordinary variety of expertise in the panel today. i don't know any american public

servant who has had more time on the ground, intellectual dedication and emotional commitment than ambassador crocker. it's great to see you here today, sir. dr. hussein any, as someone who spent a good part of his life as a novelist and also having worked in the dread hollywood off and on for about 15 years, i have incredible admiration for the literary achievement that you were able to bring with "kite runner." i've often said that you can communicate to people on an emotional level through a piece of literature in a way they've come to understand things probably better than any other way. just an amazingly powerful film. i congratulate you on what it took to put it together, all of that so rare to see a piece of literature that can hit all the issues of loyalty and respect

and father-son-relationships and all those sorts of things. just an amazing achievement. i would like to begin by expressing my appreciation actually for what senator corker said. it does address the difficulty that we have up here in this particular issue. that is when you look at where we seem to be going here from a national strategic perspective, from a perspective of national interest, american national interest in terms of how we use our assets, where we put our expenditures in terms of national treasure, whether we should build up an infrastructure to address an enemy that is basically a mobile enemy, and we saw this in iraq quite frankly. we built up a huge

infrastructure to address two different sets of problems. one was the issue of international terrorism which is intrinsically mobile and decided to relocate after a period of time. but then also to have to pick up the pieces of what we had done following our invasion and try to repair relationships and move iraq forward, in terms of the advantage that the forces of international terrorism wish to have, that was pretty good for them long term. we spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars, and they remained active. we're looking at something similar here in afghanistan. i know we've got national mission creep going on now talking about whether we really are going to attempt to basicall i look at what happened in somalia a couple of days ago.

if you are talking about going after the forces of terrorism, that was an effective way of doing it. coming over the horizon, hitting the terrorism and not leaving behind the infrastructure and being able to have the same maneuverability as your enemy hess. we are also moving forward with a different debate here, and we will have that debate. the question is not whether there is no military solution, which has been agreed upon. it is whether the military component of this solution is one that will work. i say that because i would like to ask you on your panel to look at this from two different perspectives. first, at what point do we reach a tipping point with the u.s. military where the presence and operations might be

counterproductive? this has been raised before, but there is an additional component to it that i have concern on. that is to what extent in afghanistan can we actually build a national army? i have asked this question to general petraeus and general mccrhrystal this is not a country that has had experience with national army. it is a country with a lot of national pride, but the best i can see is at one period in the late 1900's there was a national army of 90,000. with the police it was 250,000. at what point does our presence reach a tipping point was counterproductive, where people believe we are an occupying force, and then can we actually do the other piece of this in

terms of the history of the country? dr. la carte -- dr. lockhart, i would like to get your views on that as a starting point. starting point. >> i do believe there is potentially a point at which presence may be counterproductive. but i don't believe we've reached that yet i think the only way that can be tested and ascertained is through polling and observation of the population. i believe, like dr. husseini is why there is a criticism, they're very much in the minority. the majority of the population seeks very much and hopes very much that the u.s. commitment remains and the international partnership remains for the long-term stability of the country.

in terms of the possibility of building national insitutions, whether the army or other institutions, i believe it absolutely is possible. and the remarkable uk ses of the efforts since 2001 to build up the afghan national army, i had the honor to observe the first battalion graduate and walk down the street and it was welcomed literally with tears of the population. the pride of the people in that institution was remarkable. they deeply understand that it's through institutions like that that their daily needs, most basically their security can be met. we've seen that in the afghan national army and across different institutions where afghans with a main mall commitment to training and education do write the challenge of managing their own institutions. >> thank you, ambassador crocker. you and i had an exchange several years ago with the situation in iraq. one of your strongly made points

was that the iraqis of all different ethnicities had come together. your point had been that more than 200,000 shia had actually died fighting in the iran-iraq war. what are your thoughts about the situation with respect to afghanistan? >> well, the fortunate thing for me, senator, is i remember no one but myself these days. so as uninformed as my opinions may be, at least i'm entitled to have them. since you asked to express them, i do believe that what we have seen thus far shows us with all of the shortcomings in terms of manpower, material and even abilities, that the afghans are capable of developing and fielding national forces. as i understand it, perhaps the

army more so than the police. but even with the police. as you noted, sir, while afghanistan has a history of challenges to central governments, it also has a history of a national military. my sense is that afghans are quite proud of the tradition of that military in the country's history. i think it can be done. i think it is being done. but as we saw in iraq, this takes time. the early test that, as you know, that the iraqi security forces faced almost took them apart. so i think that we and the afghans have to be careful not to put more of a burden on these developing forces than they can

bare at this time. at so many points, this will take time. nowhere i think is that more the case than it is in the development of these security forces. >> my time has expired. i appreciate both of your answers. of course, the difficulty is the other side of that, that the more time we have with the size of the american presence, the more risk we have of being viewed in a different light. i thank you for your comments. >> thank you senator webb, senator shah heen. >> dr. lockhart, thank you for all the work you've done in afghanistan and especially in the post september 11th program when you were there on the ground helping to lay out the foundation on which we can move forward in afghanistan. you laid out four distinct options for governance in this post election.

but you didn't say whether you thought there was a preferred means of action. do you think one of those options is preferable? >> i think the -- thank you for your kind words. i think the first two options i outlined of letting the current governance arrangements continue unchecked or plus trying to build governance bottom-up while we have a vacuum in essence at the top are not going to be desirable, probably would not lead to success. i think the two other options, one of accepting the victory of the incumbent, but putting in place very sfrikt conditions, agreeing on benchmarks particularly on financial accountability and asking for some deaf lugs of power and putting in place checks an ambulances would be one preferred option. the other would be to go back to the drawing board and putting in

place a new transitional authority which would probably govern for a two to four-year period and one of whose central tasks will be organizing a morrow bust set of elections next time, which will require an inquiry into what went wrong, one of which will be a census. >> does that run the risk of creating a perception that the international community is making the determination about the future of the afghanistan and sort of erasing the elections, even recognizing that the elections might be flawed? >> i think that option would only be possible if the ecc which is a domestic afghan institution, would first rule that either one of the -- one or more of the candidates, the process or a certain number of ballots were invalid. it would have to rest on that domestic determination.

then a lot of care would have to be taken to ensure that the process moved forward in accordance with the afghan constitution. and there are provisions within the constitution that would allow that to take place. >> thank you for that clarification. dr. husseini, this question is both for you and dr. lockhart, i think. i, like senator webb, very much appreciate your books and think they're wonderful and have probably done as much as any po policy in this country to make americans care about what happens in afghanistan. so thank you for that. what do you see happening on the ground in terms of coordination of aid among the international entities that are in afghanistan and the un and several of you have referenced that. what should be done better to improve that coordination and to deal with the corruption and the fraud that seems to be happening

too much there? >> thank you for your kind words. i may have to defer a good chunk of this question to my more qualified colleagues on the panel. but there's a perception in afghanistan among the civilians that of the billions of dollars that have come to afghanistan, not a whole lot of it has reached the afghans themselves. there is disappointment that even though afghanistan has been focus of international attention now for several years, by and large for average afghans, quality of life has not improved significantly. most afghans are still lacking for basic social services the same as they were a number of years ago. i will just say that only a

fraction of it ends up in the pockets of the afghans themselves. so much of the money is spent on providing security for the foreign presence, the aid organization and the bureaucrats, to paying the salary of consultants. much of the resources and the services that are utilized in afghanistan are outsourced and, therefore, don't provide opportunity and employment for the afghans themselves. of course, the -- much of the money bypasses the afghan government itself, reenforcing the image of the government as sort of being an omnipotent bystander. i think those are all issues that have to be addressed. i'm going to defer to my other colleagues about more on the issue. >> thank you. i don't know. dr. lockhart, ambassador crock

kerr, general krad dock, who would like to take a shot of that. >> a few observations. a terribly important, the failure to coordinate aid has fed into the corruption within the afghan institution. i think first is developing a robust -- not being afraid of butting a robust set of conditions for aid either through an ims program or u.s. or multi-lateral agreement. central to that would be insisting on transparency, particularly in licensing and revenue as well as expenditure and audits that should be released to the of a gan public. second is putting the of afghan budget and institutions central. the afghan budget is the policy coordination mechanism on the ground. i think we're making the mistake when we're asking them to coordinate. we need roadmap for each ministry. we have o road map for the afghan national army. we need the same thing for the other institutions. i think we have a quord dplags

effort, the afghan reconstruction trust fund is managed by the world bank and acts as a tool key system on the flow of money. using that or developing a parallel type of trust fund for u.s. resources would be essential. and then where agencies and pry company are contracted, we have to provide the same set of robust set of transparency which to date have not been in place. >> thank you very much. ambassador crocker, do you have anything you want to add to that? >> no, ma'am. >> thank you both ambassador crocker and general krad doctor your service as well. >> senator kaufman. >> i want to thank you and the ranking member for holing these hearings right now. i think this decision that's going to be made right now is one of the most important decisions we'll be dealing with are in the senate where we're

dealing with a lot of these things. having the panels have been excellent, just the right people. i cannot commend you enough for doing this. i want to thank everybody on the panel. just having the ability to listen to what you have to say is so helpful in trying to deal with this. i have a few questions. one is, it's been mentioned by a number of senators and also in the popular press, that the somalia rate is a model for u. operations in afghanistan. is it the some mall rate a through the u.s. counter- terrorism forces, not so much the nato counter insurgent capability. again, but with a hierarchy with cells operating as opposed to a vertical hierarchy. it is difficult to make long-

term gains because someone always steps up, but a is an ongoing operation done very precisely. it is what you don't hear that is more important than what you do. >> anyone else? >> senator, i think that is an important question that is beyond my expertise to adequately answer, but it is worth posing to those in the administration more qualified. my sense is that the somalian model probably cannot be successfully replicated in afghanistan. . . replicated in afghanistan. i think the dynamics there are more complex. i also think, frankly, that given that the commander in

afghanistan, general mcchrystal, is perhaps the most capable special operations commander that this country has ever produced, that if he thought it could be done that way, i think we'd be seeing different sets of recommendations. >> great. thank you. there's a discussion about expediting the elections that senator wicker raised. i think that would be key to everyone. i met with abdul abdullah two weeks ago. there's always a chance he might throw in with karzai. for the sake of the question, can anybody think of a why to expedite the end of this election without considering the there's some kind of a coalition government? >> senator, that's a very important question. i'm not sure there is a way to e expedite it. i think there will be a tendency to allow the ecc to complete its

investigations and then make a determination on whether the process has met the standards of a fair enough election. i think the only thing that could bring it to a resolution earlier would be the coming together within the afghan political elite of enough of the candidates, critically abdullah and karzai, but potentially others within the political elite who would agree to form a type of unity government. >> i think it's key that -- this is the worst possible time for this to happen. so if anybody comes up with any ideas, i hear a lot of talk about expediting, but i haven't heard a single person to get us to where we have to get to. if you come up with anything, i would very much appreciate it. let's talk about civilian surge for a second. senator lugar has raised that a number of times. it's really, really important. one of the problems is recruiting people. how do we improve recruitment of civil and foreign service officers to move away from -- as we move away from a reliance on contractors?

>> senator, if i could just take one element of that drawing from my experience in iraq, we need more efficient mechanisms in government to be able to respond to complex contingencies like iraq and afghanistan. simply put, there are not enough people, period, not enough people with the skill sets that are required in these contingencies within the foreign service, either state or usaid. it requires a process to bring in able talent from other agencies and from the private sector. and that still, frankly, does not work very well. it's called the 3161 process. i can tell you that it's painful in the extreme to make that

work, work quickly, getting the right people in the right places. i know the administration has put more emphasis on building up what's called scrs within the state department as a means of providing a civilian reserve, if p you will. i would applaud that. but a great deal more needs to be done to put in place the structures that will allow an administration to identify and quickly bring to the field the numbers and the skill sets that simply do not exist within the established foreign affairs agencies. >> i think it's good you point out the difficulty of this. people glaze over this and senator lugar has been talking about this for quite awhile. if we're going to be fighting wars of counterinsurgency in the future, we're trying to get enough people, but planning down the road is really, really important. can i ask you another experience, experience in iraq.

two things. one is how is -- we're trying to get the taliban to come over, kind of like we did with the sons of iraq in anbar province. would you comment on whether you think that's possible in afghanistan? >> i do think it's possible. again, i'm not in a position to comment with any detail on the dynamics there. but once again, i think we've got the right people in this fight. both general mcchrystal, of course, with his substantial experience in afghanistan and iraq, where i had the privilege of serving with him and general petraeus, in many respects, the architect of the awakening strategy, of course now has oversight of both campaigns. i have a high level of confidence that we do have the people engaged on this that can figure out what can be done and

how to do it. all of that said, and again my colleagues, dr. lockhart and dr. husseini are far more qualified to speak to it. it is -- it's going to be a very different and more difficult process. the sunni insurgency in the iraq was not deeply rooted in time or in etiology. the taliban, of course, are both. >> thank you very much. i want to tell you i think everyone agrees that our success in iraq is based on the people we have there. one of the very best people was you and the people we have there, general mcchrystal, holbrook, we have a good team over there, too. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator kaufman. let me follow up on a few things if i can.

the sort of a parallel to a couple of questions. on the issue of the taliban which is central to this -- actually, before i get to this. i want to ask general krad dock, it's important to our understanding of what the options are in the taliban, as supreme allied commander, you were commanding nato forces, and you're very familiar where the tensions within that block at this point. my sense is that we are losing our allies' enthusiasm for this effort and that a number of them -- i won't go into the details there -- but have been very reluctant all along to engage. their troops don't engage. and looking to them for additional support here, i mean i think essentially we're going to kind of be on our own here. we have -- is that a fair

assessment? >> senator, i think that's a fair assessment from a military perspective. i would agree there is unequal burden-sharing among the alliance with regard to those who will and those who won't. i do think, however, there's opportunity with nato allies to ask for trainers in areas where it may not be as risky and they may have political viability. i think they should be asked for civilian surge capability. there's plenty of that in europe. if you knock down the wall between nato and the eu, you might be able to access a lot of that capability that we need there. >> i'd like to examine -- that's a good thought there. i want to examine this attitude a little bit. do they know something that we don't know? >> i can't speak for them in terms of what they know -- >> but you've had these conversations. i've had these conversations, and you have, too. there is an attitudal difference about the threat. there's a threat definition difference, isn't there? >> indeed. >> isn't that important for us to understand? >> well, i think it's been

discussed here. in europe, terrorism is viewed as a police issue when it's visited upon their people. and you deal with it then as opposed to stopping it before it gets into your country. so the military generally does not deal with terrorism to the extent that we do here because of the attacks. >> but i think their perception goes actually deeper than that. i think there's a sense -- there's a different sense of how you manage this over a period of time. you're nodding your head, ms. lockhart. do you want to share your perception then? your body language got you in trouble there. >> i think twofold. i would agree that there is absolutely a winning enthusiasm amongst public opinion in europe. i think that's partly because there has yet to be a credibility articulation of exactly what the strategy is

going to be and particularly the failures in homeland in britain is infecting the public debate. that's again partly because in helmut there was not a credible articulation of a governance and development strategy. that remains open. i do believe public opinion could be reconvinced if that strategy is to be articulated. >> your strategy involves a pretty significant commitment of resources, investment personnel, civilians -- it really is a nation-building strategy. >> it is. and i believe that there will be more appetite in europe and other countries for engagement on training, as general krad dock articulated, and on the civilian surge elements, particularly in areas like capacity-building and economic investment. so a sensible division of labor going forward may be to look to support from allies particularly in europe and japan for that

civilian type of assistance, recognizing the europe will continue to bear the brunt. >> general krad dock, we'll get more folks that are hopefully more operational with afghanistan itself as we go down the road here. from a military perspective, in order to do the kinds of things that ms. lockhart and others have talked about doing in building the governance, building -- the capacity building and so forth, you've got to have some security. is it possible to do the security without the kind of current engagement in civilian collateral deaths that we currently have? or are the insurgents always capable of guarantees that you have that even if you don't want it? is that a great danger here? >> it's my judgment that in irregular warfare and given what we know about the insurgents, that they were always capable of

arranging that situation. i can give you chapter and verse over and over again of operations and targeting that looked fine but didn't turn out that way for a meriad of reasons. again, the use of civilians as shields is very difficult to combat. now, having said that, i think we can continue to work to min niz. i think that the tactical guidance put into place by general mcchrystal recently has gone a long way and will continue to do that to minimize that pushback. if i may, a point that ms. lockhart raised. the british strategy in helmut, the dutch strategy in ar ruse gone, the u.s. strategy in pack teek ka or nang ga har, one of the strategies we face is the arrangements in nato. they deal with that at the

expense of dealing with that with the country as a whole. it's caused us problems overtime. >> i agree with that. one of the most significance problems is the absence for almost eight years of a unified command and unified strategy. in fact -- people need to understand this. this is important as we think about afghanistan. we have traveled this journey for almost seven years without a strategy. there was sort of a -- just a continuum at the expense of iraq. and i think most people have agreed that troops were diverted, resources were deserted, so it's only been in the last few months that people have begun to hone in and say how do we adjust? the challenge as i wrote back last february is the clock ticking, the amount of time lost to the corruption, to the other things and can you make it up. i want to come back to that for a moment ambassador crocker if i can. with respect to the taliban, you made a very perceptive observation in answer to senator

kaufman's question. you noted the historical, cultural depth of the taliban versus the insurgency in iraq. there are different -- however, we keep hearing about sort of different shades of taliban. can you share with us perhaps, you know, to what degree can the taliban be sort of divided in a way here? is there a diplomatic/civilian ability to reach out to them and, in fact, give them something that they want more than being taliban? and, therefore, isolating the really hard core taliban? is or are we dealing with a monolithic entity? >> mr. chairman, i would make a few observations on the methodology, if you will, and then perhaps dr. hosseini or dr.

lockhart will have some comments more on the nature of the taliban as they see it. that's not my area of expertise. the principal we've followed in iraq was exactly what you suggest. it was talking to anyone who would talk to us without regard to what they may have done to us in the past, trying to find splits, fish chers, differences of view, people who would be susceptible to whatever we might offer to break up an insurgency, if you will, to pull people either to our side or at least into the neutral zone. we did that without spending a tremendous amount of time trying to figure out what etiological persuasion might exist here or there. we just kind of went at it. we got if the word out that

we're open for discussion. it seems to me that a similar approach has great potential, also, in afghanistan. the taliban is not a monolithic organization. they are not card-carrying members. there have to be many different motivations and levels of commitment. so it's by seeking ways to engage, to discuss, direct, indirect that i think we'll find what the limits are of shrinking an adversary down to the smallest possible number of irreconcilables, as we put it, in terms of iraq. you want to reduce the number of people who absolutely have to be killed to the smallest number possible. i think again the same methodology will work in afghanistan. but my colleagues would be far

more knowledgeable on the nature of what we're dealing with there. >> do you want to comment, either of you? just quickly, i want to try to -- >> sure. i agree with the ambassador. the taliban are not a monolithic movement. the term taliban refers to a cluster of different groups that more or less answer to different leadership. so part of the challenge of -- again, i'm sort of out of my element here. part of the challenge of negotiating with these people is that there's no -- in the absence of clear leadership structure is difficult to determine who exactly you speak to. and in addition, at the present time it seems to me the taliban have no incentive really to negotiate because the perception

is they've managed to frus street the coalition. in addition, the united states would likely ask the taliban to sever their ties to the more radical groups like al qaeda and they may be reluctant to do that. the taliban may say it's the of a gan government that will negotiate, but we need the foreigners to leave the country. again, these are very difficult and challenging preconditions. that said, i think there's an opportunity to at least engage some of the more so-called moderate members of the taliban. these would be the more afghan, the more reconcilable elements. if there's -- a tradition in afghanistan is switching allegiances, we saw that over and over again during the civil war in afghanistan. if anything, afghans are a pragmatic people, and if certain elements of at least the afghan movement can be convinced that it's in their self-interest and pragmatic interest to come over to the other side, they may be

interested in doing that. but i will say that on my recent trip to afghanistan, i spoke to a lot of people on the street, and my sense is that by and large a lot of people, although they don't feel any -- necessarily any kind ship with the taliban, they are in favor of some kind of negotiation between the west and the taliban. >> thank you. senator lugar, do you have any more questions? senator casey? >> i know we have to move on. i felt guilty i hadn't asked the doctor and the general a question. at the risk of delaying things, two quick questions. one is, dr., with regard -- first of all, i want to commend the work of unhcr across the world. we had hearings at the tub committee level on refugees in both iraq and pakistan.

i was very interested in what you said about the refugee challenge in afghanistan. i guess i'd ask you this question. what's the guess i would ask yo question, what's the short-term and near-term are challenge with regard to this question about you refer to it as reintegration. first and then second, what is the -- what is the likelihood that there's going to be a dramatic increase in the number of refugees in afghanistan, which becomes in all refugee situations, i saw this firsthand, not the problems with it, but just a good example of what's happening on the ground in pakistan where you visit an idp camp there where internally displaced people seemed to be for the most part treated well and seem ed to be moving back t their community, but if it doesn't go well, you have both the humanitarian and a security problem. but i guess i would ask you,

first of all, on the sense of increase that may occur in afghanistan in terms of the number of refugees. and secondly, the of reintegration. >> just before you answer, i need to go down to the finance committee for a few minutes on the health care thing, but i want to thank the panel for your contributions today, it's been very, very helpful. we have a distance to go yet, but i think we're beginning to shed some light on it and we're very grate fful for you for bei here today and i want to thank my colleagues. whoever wants to be the last questioner, just close it out. thanks. >> thank you, chairman kerry. >> reintegration of afghan ref i didn'ts continues to be very difficult challenge. and to put it in perspective, let's remember that afghanistan, even in it's heyday ranked at or near the bottom of the global

index for human development, now put that country through 30 years of successive civil conduct and increase its pop lagts in a six of six years by 20%. if we increase the population of a developed nation like france or the uk by 20%, how would they be able to hand it? frankly it would be kay ychaotit in afghanistan, the lack of public administration and lack of effective governor governance has allowed that to happen. so what we're seeing in afghanistan in regards to the refugee reintegration is the stresses and strains of a government that is more or less puckling under the strain of reabsorbing the millions of people who have come back. so reintegration in afghanistan is a serious challenge. for some, there is more or less been able to resume their lives in a relatively settled fashion. but for many refugees, they

continue to face the lack of basic social services. fo foremost among those, land, shelter, jobs. and then water, education and access to health facilities. i believe that the era of spontaneous voluntary vurn over. we saw 5:00 million people coming from since 2002 last year, 280,000 afghans returned home. this year, a fraction of that, only 50,000. the reasons for that have to do with partly with low absorption capacity in afghanistan, partly with the security, par particularly these to originated from the pashtun belts and are concerned about returning to the places of origin where the insurgency is very strong. part of it has do with the lack of employment opportunity.

this is particular the case with the ref i didn'ts in iran who have relatively better living conditions in iran they've been able to make a life for themselves. so 2.6 afghans still remain abroad. 1.6 roughly in pakistan and 1 million in iran and it is far from clear whether or if they will return from afghanistan. they don't feel any kinship with afghans and the idea of uprooting their lives to settle in a rae mote region of the country is not particularly attractive for them. it's a major challenge for the government of and particularly with iran to negotiate and couple to a resolution as to the ultimate fate of the refugees. as far as the increased number of refugees, we are seeing far

more displacement than we were a few years ago. we are now, over a quarter of a million afghans who are displaced. the reasons for displacement within afghanistan have do partial with the conflict, particularly in the south and southeast, where again the insurgency is strong, but part of it has to also with land disputes, lack of economic opportunity and so on and so forth. so for the foreseeable future, i think this will be a challenge for unhcr. >> one of the more interesting parts of the challenge or the results, i should say, in pakistan was you about 80% of the internally displaced people who were displaced because of the military conflict in places like the swat valley and other places. you had about 80% of those internally displaced people go into home, people would take them in based upon both, i think, pashtun tradition and the

welcoming way they bring people into their holmes and secondly because of the experience of the 2005 earthquake. so you had -- of the 2 million plus in pack tan who are displaced. 80% of them were brought into homes, so maybe the challenge there was different than it might in other places including afghanistan, but i know we don't have a lot more time. general, the last question and then we'll wrap up, you may not have an opinion about this yet because it's about 24 hours as we do in washington, we want opinions about something that's barely out. but the administration has put forth now a draft or at least a starting point on met strings. what they call evaluating progress with regard to afghanistan, both military and nonmilitary. i know you may not have had a chance to review it yet, but what's your sense? do you have an opinion on what they produced? if not, what's your sense about

how do go about that? because we need people to weigh in on what metrics are valid, what metrics are ones we should use and with have to have -- i believe, we meaning the congress and administration both, have to give a lot of frequent, frequent, frequent reporting on progress if we want to sustain support for any kind of an effort. >> thank you, senator. i have not seen the metrics, i know it's been a work in progress for some time. i am a strong supporter of metrics. what we have done to date and my judgment has been measured performance. how many miles or kilometers of road, how many children are in school, how many vaccinations but we haven't measured the effect of the performance. and these met strings have to go to the next step. what is working, how do we measure it, do we measure what we can measure? because it's easy to measure even though not relevant or do we measure what's fortunate determine the effect and then e

reinforce success, stop failure and find something else? nato has struggled with this, they're still working on it. the isaf forces are working on metric metrics,ie i think we need to pull together some good analytical minds and critical determine are what it we'll focus on both in security, governance and just the development process. they all bleed over into each other's field. you can't get one without the other. so i will be looking for this closely, i think it will behoove us in the coming very near term here, to come to grips with this. the hard part will be going out and getting the data and then the critical objective analysis. >> i hope all four of you will weigh in on as time goes by. we need your help. thanks very much. this hearing is adjourned unless senator kaufmann has something else. we're all set? hearing adjourned.000

>> next, our coverage of the recent changes to the u.s. missile defense program. first, remarks from president obama. then defense secretary robert gates. also, reaction from republican congressman howard mckeon, mike pence, and later senator john mccain.

sunday on c-span, a forum with former president jimmy carter. he and his wife roz lynn talk about the foreign policy programs and take questions from the audience. >> what are your thoughts regarding the recent outburst by representative joe wilson of south carolina during president obama's recent address to the joint session of congress? do you recall a similar event in your political career? >> i'm going to be frank with you all. i think it's based on racism. there's an inherent -- [applause] there is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an african american ought not to be president. and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white. and this has permeated politics ever since i've been involved

in it back in the 1960s. not only in the south, but also in many places throughout the nation. >> we'll show you that entire hour, 20 minute event sunday at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. a look now at recent changes to u.s. missile defense plans. first, remarks from president obama on his plans to abandon the building of a long-range missile defense system in poland and the czech republic. >> good morning. as commander in chief, i'm committed to doing everything in my power to advance our national security. and that includes strengthening our defenses against any and all threats toe our people, our troops, and our friends and allies around the world.

and one of those threats is the danger posed by ballistic missiles. as i said during the campaign, president bush was right that iran's ballistic missile program poses a significant threat. that's why i'm committed to deploying strong missile defense system which is are adaptable to the threat of the twints century. the best way to responseably advance our security and the security of our our allies is to deploy a system that best responds to the threats that we face and that utilizes technology that is both proven and cost effective. in keeping with that commitment and a congressly mandated review, i ordered a comprehensive assessments of our missile defense system in europe. and after an extensive process i have approved the unanimous recommendations of my secretary of defense and joint chiefs of staffs to strengthen america's

defenses against ballistic missile attacks. this new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on systems and offer greater defenses than the 2007 european missile defense program. this decision was guided by two principle factors. first, we have updated our intelligence assessment of iran's missile programs which emphasizes the threat posed by iran's short and medium range missiles which are capable of reaching europe. there's no substitute for iran complying with its international obligations regarding its nuclear program and we along with our allies and partners will continue to pursue strong diplomacy to ensure that iran lives up to these obligations but this new ballistic missile program will best address the threat posed by iran's ongoing ballistic missile defense program. second, we have made specific and proven advances in our

missile defense technology particularly with regard to land and sea-based interceptors and the sensors that support them. our new approach will therefore deploy technology that is are proven and cost effective and to counter the current threat and to do so sooner than the program. because our approach will be phased and adaptive we will retain the flexibility to adjust our defenses as the threat and technology continue to evolve. to put it simpli, our new missile defense technology will provide stronger, smarter, and swifter defense of american forces and allies. it deploys capability that is are proven and cost effective and sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the u.s. homeland against long-range ballistic missile threats and it ensures and enhances the protection of all our nato allies.

this approach is also consistent with nato's missile defense efforts and provides opportunities for enhanced international collaboration going forward. we will continue to work cooperatively with our close friends and allies, the czech republic and poland who had agreed to host elements of the previous program. i've spoken with the prime ministers of both the czech republic and polend and ensure our deep ties. we are committed to a broad range of efforts and we are bound by the solemn commitment of nato's article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all. we've also repeatedly made clear to russia that its concerns about our previous missile defense programs were entirely unfounded. our clear and consistent focus has been the threat posed by iran's ballistic missile program and that continues to be our focus and the basis for the program that we're

announcing today. in confronting that threat, we welcome russian cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interest even as we continue our shared efforts to end iran's nuclear program. going forward, my administration will continue to consult closely with congress and with our allies as we deploy this system, and we will rigorously evaluate both the threat posed by ballistic missile missiles and the technology that we are developing to counter it. i am confident that we have strengthened america's national security and the ability to confront 21st century threats. thank you very much, everybody. >> defense secretary robert gates briefs reporters on the details of the restructuring of the e ballistic missile defense

program. >> good morning. first, before starting on today's announcement, i would like to acknowledge the loss of six italian soldiers and a number of civilians in a bombing attack in kabul. our condolences go out to those killed and to the italian and afghan people. this week, the president on the recommendation and advice of his national security team and our senior military leadership decided to change the architecture of our ballistic missile defense in europe, a change i believe will enhance our ability to respond to the most immediate threats to the continent as well as future threats. first, some background. on december 27, 2006, i recommended that president bush

initiate a europe-based missile defense system that would put an advanced radar in the czech republic and interceptors in poland. at the time, this was considered the best way to protect the united states and our allies by the growing threat of iran's development of longer range ballistic missiles. since then, two developments have prompted a reapproach. first, a change in our intelligence community's 2006 view of the iranian threat. intelligence community now assesses that the threat from iran's short and medium range bliffles such as the sha has been 3 is developing more rapidly than previously projected. this poses an increased threat to our forces on the european continent as well as to our allies. on the other hand, our intelligence assessment also now assesses that the threat of potential iranian intercontinental ballistic

missile capabilities has been slowing to develop. the second development relates to our technology. over the last few years, we have made great strides with missile defense, particularly in our ability to counter short and medium ranged missiles. we now have proven capabilities to intercept these bliffles with land and sea based interceptors supported by much improved sensors. these offer a variety of options to detect, track, and shoot down enemy missiles. this allows us to deploy a distributed sensor network rather than a single fixed site like the kind slated for the czech republic enabling greater surviveability and adaptability. we have also improved the standard missile 3, the sm 3, which has had eight successful flight tests since 2007. these have amply demonstrated their capability and given us

greater confidence in the system and its future. based on these two factors we have now the opportunity to deploy new sensors and interceptors in northern and southern europe that near-term can provide missile defense coverage against more immediate threats from iran or others. in the initial stage, we will deploy aegis ships equipped with interceptors, with the ability to move interceptors from one region to another if needed. the second phase, about 15e will involve fielding upgraded land-based sm 3s. consultations have begun with allies starting with poland and the czech republic about hosting a land-based version of sm 3. basing some interceptors on land will provide additional coverage and save costs compared to a purely sea-based approach. over time, this architecture is designed to continually incorporate new and more effective technologies as well

as more interceptors, expanding the range of coverage, improving our ability to knock down multiple targets, and increasing the surviveability of the overall system. this approach also provides us with greater flexibility to adapt to developing threats and evolving technologies. for example, although the iranian long-range missile threat is not as meet as we previously thought, this system will allow us to incorporate future defensive capabilities against such threats as they develop. perhaps most important is we can now feel the initial elements of the system to protect our forces in europe and allies roughly six to seven years earlier than the previous plan. a fact made more relevant by continued delays in the check and polish processes that have caused repeated slips in the timeline. i would also note that plans to cover most of europe and add to the defense of the u.s.

homeland will continue on about the same schedule as before. as the president has said very clearly, as long as the iranian threat persists, we will pursue proven and cost effective missile defenses. today, the department of defense is briefing the congress and our nato allies about this plan. one of our guiding principles for missile defense remains the involvement and support of our allies and partners. we will continue to depend on our allies and develop a system that most effectively defends against very real and growing threats. those who say we are scrabbing missile defense in europe are either misinformed or misidentifying the reality of the what we are doing. the security of europe has been a vital national interest of the united states for my entire career. the circumstances borders and threats may have changed, but that commitment continues. i believe this new approach provides a better missile defense capability for our

forces in europe, for our european allies, and eventually for our homeland than the program i recommended almost three years ago. it is more adapted to the threat we see developing and takes advantage of new techcal capabilities available to us today. >> next, republic congressman howard mckeen. mike pence and others respond to president obama's speech on missile defense. this is 20 minutes. >> good morning. or good afternoon. thank you. we are upset with what the administration has announced this morning or announcing today on the ballistic missile defense. the obama administration announces terminating the

european missile defense system, the ten interceptors planned for deployment in poland and radar in the czech republic. we're seeing the administration's real national security policy emerge. it undercuts allies, caves in to russia and cow tows to iran and north korea. this decision undermines our allies, specifically the poles and the checks. they provided sfed fast support to the u.s. and afghanistan. the administration is cap pit lating to russian demands, rewarding russia for its devicive policies and action. despite it was not linking the start follow-up on arm treaty, on eve of negotiations they give russia what they wanted. hardly it seems to me the way to start a negotiation. contrary to the intelligence and evidence reports that indicate a growing iranian

threat, the obama administration claims that the threat is now downgraded. we have seen nothing to indicate any downgrade of the threat. iranian behavior in the past year clearly demonstrates their intent and capability to develop long-range missiles. obama is clearly renegged on his pledge made in prauge that he would move forward with european missile defense as long as the threat from iran exists. the u.s. and europe will be left vulnerable. iran now has an open invitation to focus on long range development which it's already doing. this decision did not appear to be made on the basis of cost effectiveness grounds. according to a 2008 independent study, the check and polish plans are the most cost effective. with a $1.2 billion cut in the

missile defense in the recently passed defense budget, the administration's program investments do not match its policy. will we see necessary missile defense investments in next year's budget or will it be cut further? while the administration has announced its decision today that congress has an important role here, too. we expect to hold comprehensive hearings on the so-called downgrading of the iranian threat as we move forward in the conference on the mdaa, we will continue to push for and fund missile defense capabilities that will protect both europe and the u.s. i forgotten to mention, i'm buck mckeon, ranking member on the armed services committee. we're happy to have with us, eric canter, can republican whip. >> thank you very much. good afternoon. the safety and security of this country is of obviously the just most importance for what

goes on in this building and in this town. washington's ability to guarantee the safety of american citizens is premised on many things, but first and foremost a consistency and commitment to our military and to our posture vis-a-vis our allies and our enemy. as buck indicated, this sudden turn around, the sudden release apparently of new intelligence information that has not come the way of the hill is somewhat puzzling to say the least. congress has received briefings on intelligence about the threat that iran poses to u.s. interests as well as the united states itself on our homeland. so we are very concerned about what seems to be a sudden turn around and a shift in terms of the analysis of the intelligence that we received. and we await the answers associated with that turn around from the administration. but even more than that, i am

very troubled by some reported statements of the vice president. i'm hopeful that the reports misquoted the vice president, but essentially vice president biden said that he was much less concerned about iran because iran did not have the potential capacity to launch a missile at the united states. to me, implicit in this statement is that we should not necessarily concern ourselves with the threat to our allies in europe, to our allies in the middle east such as israel with iran's current capability. not to mention the fact that there are troops, american troops, men and women on the ground in the region in turlic, iraq, afghanistan, with within the ability for sha hab missiles to do serious damage to our interest in that region. so we're here out of that

concern. and then, to reiterate our commitment to our allies, that the united states is committed to the die fence of our security, and their security. >> thank you. now we'll hear from mike turner, who is the subcommittee ranking member on the missile issue. mike turner from ohio. >> this is an important issue because we're getting a picture of this administration's defense posture and plans for the united states. they have cut missile defense by $1.2 billion in funding and now they're retreating from the deployment of a missile defense shield in europe. they have proposed a cut by over a third of the missile defense fields that we had proposed for alaska. in reviewing the president's plan, this is what is clear. now, the president is proposing a reduction in the missile defense capability that would protect both our allies and the united states. he is doing so after a $1.2

billion cut overall to missile defense funding. in the plan that he has released he's proposing not providing the united states with long-range missile defense protection until 2020. the plan theas cutting would have protected the united states as early as 13e. and what's really odd about what the president is proposing is there already is a classified study that was undertaken that our committee had the presentations that detailed that the cost effective plan to protect both europe, our allies and our strategic interests there, and the united states, was the plan that was proposed for the czech republic and the poles. i'm asking today secretary gates to release the classified version of that plan. here we have the administration proceeding to take down a plan that has already been independently assessed as the most cost effective way to protect the united states while they're indicating they're

going to pursue oots one. but the time line that's important is to remember that the president is taking the missile defense protection of this united states from 13e to 2020 and i don't believe that's acceptable. i don't believe it's acceptable to the american people. thank you. >> now we'll hear from mike pence, our conference chairman. >> i want to thank ranking member mckeon for calling this important press conference, and to the distinguished members of the committee and my colleagues and leadership for stepping forward. only a year since russia invaded georgia with very little global consequence, and 70 years to the day since the soviet union invaded poland, the obama administration is continuing a policy of appeasement at the expense of our allies.

history teaches that weaks in and appeasement invite aggression against peaceful nations. in advance of direct talks with iran, a nation that is publicly ruled out discussions over its own nuclear weapons program, this administration now seems to have chosen appeasment with russia, a country with deep ties to the dangerous regime in tehran. the first nine months of the obama administration have boldnd rogue dictators across the globe and now russia has boon rewarded for bullying and threatening its neighbors. not since the carter administration has america looked so weak on the national stage. house republicans are determined with the strong leadership represented here on the armed services committee, to take a stand for our allies,

to bring this debate forward, and to ensure that america continues to be a shield for freedom loving people around the world. >> thank you very much, chairman. now we'll hear from trent franks, the gentleman from arizona, member of the armed services committee. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. you know, one of the main reasons that america has become the greatest and most powerful nation on earth is because across history people have known that they could count on us to keep our word. but today's announcement by the president cansling the missile defense site in europe fundling aters that paradigm. i believe it disgraces our nation by openly breaking our word to our loyal and courageous allies in the czech republic and in poland. one of the critically important purposes of the european

missile defense site was to counter the very dangerous strategic and tactical advantage iran could gain by developing a nuclear missile capability. and as time lines exist now, it is highly unlikely that any alternative to the system that was planned will come too late. any system will come too late to be a significant factor in preventing the nation of iran from developing a nuclear missile capability. that will threaten the piece of the new world and places like israel. additionally, the plan that president obama places on the table is not only far more expensive, it does not have the capability of protecting the american homeland against incoming intercontinental bliffles, fired from rogue states like the meefl, like iran. the responsibility of the

president of the united states is to protect the security of the people of the united states. and i believe president obama's exercise today did that. i believe our children may pay a tragic price for that betrayal. [inaudible] >> it replaces a system that will, that is going to take a while for the long-range ballistic missiles, and what he is saying is this will protect us in the short range but we're not going to look at the long distance capability that they would have. and i think mike hit that nail right on the head. if you move capability out to

20 instead of 13, that's -- that presupposes they can't do anything between now and 2020. we know they work closely with north korea, we know north korea has been sending off missiles and that have long range capability. they could easily buy one of those missiles and have that capability tomorrow. that's the thing that kind of boggles my mind to think that we just put everything on hold for those years from 2009 to 2020, 11 years. >> what the president has put up as the administration's plan clearly says theal not have capability for potential future icbm threats to the united states until 2020 2020. this is their own plan. the plan he is scrapping would have provided protection by 13e. and it is absolutely absurd for them to say this is a

diminishing threat. i think everyone in their own homes watching the news understands that the increase i ran represents. and they could always buy this technology and get it, instead of lagging behind. >> one of the thing that is concerns me is that the primary purpose was to counter the iranian threat. and part of that strategic effort was to devalue the iranian nuclear program in the first place because they knew that we would be prepared when they were prepared to launch a missile, we would be prepared to intercept it. on this time line for this alternative system that the president proposes, we will not be prepared to intercept an iranian long range missile in time. so it simply puts no pressure on them and it takes away our ability to be in e facting in preventing iran from gaining

nuclear capability. >> you mentioned [inaudible] how does that impact conference negotiation? and lastly senator levin mentioned that a bill could be finished by the end of the month. do you think that's realistic as well? >> well, we have a meeting object 24th. so i guess anything is possible. but with some of the complications i've seen and in on the negotiations so far, i would not predict a bill done by the end of the month. that's i think probably a little overly optimistic. they already have in this bill the $1.2 billion cut in the missile defense, and that didn't go as far in their announcement today. so i don't know if that will complicate further -- further

complicate the conference or not. that remains to be seen. but it's a trend that really botsers me. that, you know, we have cut our defense historically in this country after wars. after world war ii we cut our defense. after world war one, after two, after korea. we just keep cutting back. but to my knowledge, we've never had the cuts in defense during a war, and in fact right now we're fighting two wars, that we have in this budget that we're dealing with right now. >> [inaudible] with what you just said about the [inaudible] do you see, what's the demand? is there anything you could do other than you're already doing? can you [inaudible]

>> yeah. we can win the next election. it concerns me because we're also talking about afghanistan. i read yesterday that the president says now that we should have a national debate on afghanistan. i thought we had a national debate and it was decided last november and his statements during the campaign indicated that afghanistan was the good war. that we had neglected. that we should be back in that war and that he set a new policy in march and we put in a new commander and we gave the commander 60 days to come out with how he was going to carry out the president's march strategy. he has done that. that has worked its way up. and we hear now that we need to have a national debate as to where we go on afghanistan. so you look at cutting back missile defense, what that does to our allies in europe and

what it does in iran, we've seen korea, what they've done, and then we look at russia. we're entering negotiations with them. we've already given them what they want before we enter the negotiations. . .

mr. mccain: mr. president, i rise today to express my deep disappointment with the administration's decision to cancel plans for fully developing missile defenses in eastern europe. this decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the united states has made to poland and the czech republic. and i believe it has the

potential to undermine american leadership in eastern europe. given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the region's nation since the end of the cold war, we shouldn't, i believe take steps backwards in strengthening these ties. yet i fear the administration's decision will do just that at a time when eastern european nations are increasingly wary of renewed russian aggression. the administration's decisions to abandon these sites come at a time when the u.s. is in the midst of negotiations with russia on reducing strategic nuclear weapons. russia has long opposed the planned missile defense sites in europe, and has on numerous occasions tried to link reductions in offensive strategic nuclear arms with defensive capabilities, such as, missile defend. in fact, president putin on many occasions has stated in very

belligerent tones his opposition to this agreement that was already made between the united states and poland and the check republic. the u.s. should reject the russian attempt to further this argument an capitalize on these ongoing negotiations. as rogue nations, including north korea and iran, push the nuclear envelope and work tireless to develop weapons capable of reaching america and its allies, we must aggressively develop the systems necessary to counter such belligerent efforts and enhance our national security, protect our troops abroad and support our allies. enhancing missile defense capabilities in europe is an essential component to addressing threats we currently face and expect to face in the future. as iran works to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all ranges, the united states must reaffirm its commitments to

its allies an develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. mr. president, i'd like to point out two important factors. the united states of america does not believe that missile defense systems are in any way a threat to any nation. they are defensive in nature, and i believe we're a -- were a key component and factor in ending the cold war. now intelligence assessments apparently have changed rather dramatically in -- since january the 16th. according to eric adelman, the under secretary for defense under policy for secretary gates during the bush administration, intelligence reports on the iranian threat as recen recentls january of this year is more troubling than what is portrayed by the current administration.

mr. adelman maintains that -- quote -- "maybe something really dramatic changed since january 16th, and now in terms of what the iranians are doing with their missile systems, but i don't think so." you know what? i don't think so either. i think the fact is that this decision was obviously rushed, the polish prime minister, according to news reports, was called at midnight. the agreement was made and ratified by these countries after consultation, discussion, and a proper process. they were not even notified of this decision. the decision to abandon the missile defense sites in poland and the czech republic came as a surprise to them. i understand that the administration officials were on a plane to supposedly to arrive in poland today.

i might add that members of congress were also not briefed on this decision prior to reading about it in the newspaper. i was not informed. i didn't know what -- quote -- "new technology was being put -- was being recommended to the put in the place of the agreement." and on -- as short a time ago as august 20th, the united states said -- quote -- "the united states is committed to security of poland of any u.s. facilities located on the territory of the republic of poland. the united states and poland intend to expand air and missile defense cooperation, et cetera." we all know that the iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. we all know that the administration is seeking the cooperation and help of the russians. now we will see. now we will see. why was this agreement rushed

into or the be ary gaition of an a-- abrogation of an agreement? why was the abrogation of an agreement between the united states and poland and the united states and the czech republic in such a rushed fashion? we know that the threat is real and growing. how many times have the -- quote -- "intelligence estimates" been wrong dating back to and including the cold war? as many times as they've been right, i tell my colleagues. whether it be their assessment about the war in iraq or whether it be the capabilities of many of our adversaries, including the -- the korean buildup, which we have been consistently wrong. so poland and the czech republic asked what many at the time

perceived an unpopular agreement agreement, despite threats from russia, both countries recognized what an importance such capability would provide to their citizens and to europe as a whole and agreed to allow the united states to place ground-based interceptors in poland and a mid-course radar site in the czech republic. what are thee countries going to do the next time we want to make an agreement with them, mr. president? in view of the way that this decision was made and was announced without their -- or, shall i say, made known to the media before they were even told about it? so it will be very interesting to what we get in return. it sounds like, according to a christian science monitor global news blog -- quote -- "we see this as a pragmatic decision, says pavlo zatarov, deputy director of the official institute of the u.s.-canada

studies, suggesting that internal u.s. factors mainly account for mr. obama's choice." "obama's sober approach is understandable given the economic crisis, because this project would have given nothing but trouble." it sounds like moscow has already discounted this sweeping strategic concession from washington. experts suggest that's because russia's foreign policy establishment had been expecting such a decision at least since obama hinted that he might give up the missile defense scheme during his summit with russian president ve da dimit rtri medvt spring. we thought it might be set asi aside, said in a leading moscow foreign policy journal.

so, mr. president, the russians seem to have anticipated this decision. unfortunately, the polish government and the czech government department. and members of congress were certainly not informed of this decision until after reading about it in the media. it's not the way to do business. i think it sends the wrong signal to the russians and to our friends and allies. and so we all have -- there are consequences of every decision. i believe the consequences of this decision may be, albeit unintentionally, encourage further belligerence on the part of the russians and a distinct lack and loss of confidence on the part of our friends and allies in the word of the united states and commitments of the united states of america.

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that articles in the "wall street journal" and the "christian science monitor" be made part of the record at this time. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered.

>> on issues related to peace

and stability in europe. and third, i would like to see nato and russia agree to carry out review of the new 21st security challenges. to serve as a firm basis for our future corporation. as you can see, these proposals are linked. before i flesh out my ideas, let me stress that there is one pre-condition for all of this to work, and that is for us all to display greater realism. because let's be honest, when the cold war ended, 20 years ago, nato and russia developed

rather unrealistic expectationings about each other. and those flawed expectations are still very much alive today and continue to burden our relationship. put simply, russia expected nato to be dissolved when the war collapsed, because many in russia can only find one explanation that the alliance stills see russia as a threat. and everything we do is seen through that prison. enlargement, defense and even our partnerships. for many in the west, the end

of the cold war seemed to herald a new age when russia would see things our way, cooperate with us across the board and support the membership in nato of former warso path countries. that was in retrospect a little unrealistic. russia is a great european power, with her own point of view. and her own interests. often those don't coincidence with ours. and when that happens, there is a sense of disappointment and incomprehension among many in

the west. well, it's no wonder that the nato/russia relationship has remained a difficult one. yes, we found great language for our partnerships aimed in the nato /russia founding act and in the rome declaration. but we have not been able to translate them into reality. yes. we cooperated on a number of issues. but this cooperation was always kept hostage to the overall political climate. one major disagreement and it would falter. and last year following the war with georgia, when russia unlaterally recognized akashi

and south basida, we ridged that point and our relationship went into a freeze, and because of the foundation of this relationship, we are not strong enough. a time-out may have been useful to rethink our relationship. but the international security environment does not wait for nato and russia to sort out their act. quite simply, nato/russia corporation is -- cooperation is not a matter of choice, it's a matter of necessity. but if the relationship is to be successful, then we must not continue to have false hopes.

i firmly believe that now is the time for us all to be much more realistic. russia must realize that nato is here to stay. not because we think russia is an enemy. we do not. but because allies share common values. and the culture cooperation and we want to preserve it. and there should be no doubt anywhere that this alliance will continue to make the security of all its members our number one priority. and why not, i do not believe that the enlargement of nato and the european union has

created any security problems for russia. on the contrary, a more stable and prosperous europe is indeed contributing to the security of russia. we also need to be realistic in recognizing that nato will continue its open door policy. not because of any intention to encircle or marginalize russia, but for respect of territory and integrity and the right of each sovereign state to decide its security policy and alignments are fundamental if russia is -- if europe is to be truly free. finally, we also have to be

more realistic in recognizing that russia has security interests, which we need to understand and take into account. many things that nato allies may regard as entirely benign can sometimes look very different when seen from moscow and vice versa. i make these points not in order to engage in some kind of blame game. but to highlight the difficulties of the concrete task before us. making a new beginning in nato/russia relations. our ultimate goal must be a relationship that allows us to pursue common interests even

when we disagree in other areas. so let me now flesh out my three proposals and explain how they will help us reach that goal. my first proposal concerns the short-term, i would like nato and russia to strengthen our practical cooperation in the many areas where we have a clear, common interest. key among these areas is the fight against terrorism. the days when terrorism was a purely local phenomena have long pasted. terrorism has mutated into a global transport of franchise. terrorists move from theater to theater, from iraq to

afghanistan, to the middle east to the caucuses, and several nato nations as well as russia have repeatedly suffered the horrors of terrorist attacks. much has already been done in this area. we agreed a joint action plan on terrorism. we have been looking at threats opposed by al-qaeda. we have examined the threats to civilian aircraft and to critical infrastructure. we also analyzed the terrorist threats to our troops when we were jointly engaged to bring stability to the western balkans. in order for all of this work to bring lasting benefits to all of our nations, we need to

give it another political push. let us agree, for example, to update our joint-action plan on terrorism. another sad interest is preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. many international experts believe that we are at a nuclear pivotal point and if iran becomes nuclear, some neighbors may feel compelled to follow their example. such a multi-nuclear is not in nato's interest and definitely not in russia's interest either. so i believe we need to take a

much more thorough look at the available options. at arms control as well as non-proliferation efforts and a means to protect ourselves against weapons of mass destruction . here we can build on work we have initiated in the recent past, as our joint assessment of proliferation trends, risks and challenges. and this brings me to another area where russia and nato can and should work together, which is missile defense. yesterday the united states announced its plans with regards to a missile defense which can include and can protect all our allies.

these plans will involve a greater role for nato with regard to missile defense in europe. and i welcome that as a positive step. in my view the proliferation of balistic missile technology is of concern, not just to nato nations but to russia too. our nations and our forces deployed in theater will all become increasingly vulnerable to missile attacks by third parties. studying ways to counter this effect is in nato's and russia's fundamental strategic interest. we as well study the

u.s. /nato and russia missile defenses at an appropriate time. and i believe that the work we have already done on theater missile defense under the