b>> what will be the afghan army projected size by july 2011?> the goal by december of 2010 is 134,000. >> my question is july of 2011. >> about 170,000. >> thank you. i think it is important to tell the american people and it is likely that casualty's will go up during the course of this troop increase. >> [unintelligible] i was very clear about the potential there. casualty's would go up. i didn't think there is any question that that is part of the risk associated with this additional trick. >> i think the american people need to understand it. but i agree with you. >> in answer to the question, he said there was a condition based withdrawal plan for july 2011. he said no. would we withdraw our troops based on conditions on the grounds are on an arbitrary date regardless of conditions? >> we are talking about the beginning of a process, not the end of the process. approximately 60% of the can stand today is not controlled by the taliban or has significant influence. >> my question is, will the date of withdrawal of 2011 be based on an arbitra

>> yes. >> if yes, who determined the july, 2011 start date?s it you or anyone in the military chain of command and why does that start date make any sense or is it just semantics? >> well, we were both i and admirable mullen, general prays, general mcchrystal, were all involved in the recommendations to the president that included this date and the date was chosen essentially for the reasons that admiral mullen just described. it's two years after the marines went into hellman, three fighting seasons and we will have a good idea by that time whether that strategy is working and what successes we will have been able to have. what is important to clarify is that this is going to be a growl process of transition and the transition to afghan security responsibility will start presumably in the least contested areas, some of which perhaps could happen now. and it will involve not just the afghan national army and the afghan national police, but local authorities, local police, tribal groups and various other security units and it will be our comman

troops will start coming home on july 2011 period. that said the state and is not helpful to that constituency being al qaeda and the taliban and don't need to be incurred that there is a talent level which we won't go in this battle because each of you said that this is the epicenter of islamic terrorism. i believe that as well. the intelligence that all the sieve scene is that play and is the speech were constituencies, the americans and the afghanis we have got to also understand we are talking to the taliban and al qaeda and our resolve has to be there or the commitment we are making to the streets is not going to have the force behind it needs to have. i am not asking a question and i don't want to put you between mr. gibson your excellent testimony today but that is the thing that has to be dealt with in delivering the message. i want ask any of you to have to respond to that but i think it is important. two questions from me. on the taliban and the al qaeda. are we tracking their sources? you had referred admiral mullen to the

over a one-year period of time, again, roughly july, 2010, to july, 2011, you will have give or take a few thousand that come in and come out, an increase of 63,000 troops for that time. that is in excess -- that is a time period greatly in excess of what we saw in iraq with a troop delta -- a change in troops greatly in excess of what we saw in iraq. >> so the drawdown will begin in july -- >> conditions based -- >> if conditions warrant it? >> a conditions-based drawdown will begin in july, 2011. >> the pace? >> the pacing. we are in transitioning in july of 2011 from americans providing the primary security, we are giving that responsibility to an afghan national security force that we have trained over this 18 to 24-month period, putting them in the lead and transitioning our forces out. >> and the pace of -- >> the pacing of that -- >> this issue will not be in any way changed or pushed back? >> that's the president the -- that's the date the president outlined last night. >> i listened quite clearly what the president said last evening. >> the president brought up the $30 billi

the july 2011 date is very important in one regard. the afghan people, they're very insecure people given their history, given the neighborhood they live in. at the same time, 80 years after arrival, there is a growing sense that they want to take charge, want to take control of their sovereignty. there is a desire among the afghans to lead with security, to build their police and their army. president karzai, in his inaugural address, was very clear when he said a goal, five years from now, he wants afghanistan security forces to be in charge throughout the country. that's a good goal that we should be reinforcing. this july 2011 date is in a sense a good forcing function for the afghans now in partnership with us to stand up and accelerate the development of their army and police. so at that point in time, they're ready to transition, start taking lead for security and certain parts of the country. the final point i would make here, senator, longer term what does this all mean? we don't know how long and what type of security assista

b>> what will be the afghan army projected size by july 2011? >> the goal by december of 2010 is 134,000. >> my question is july of 2011. >> about 170,000. >> thank you. i think it is important to tell the american people and it is likely that casualty's will go up during the course of this troop increase. >> [unintelligible] i was very clear about the potential there. casualty's would go up. i didn't think there is any question that that is part of the risk associated with this additional trick. >> i think the american people need to understand it. but i agree with you. >> in answer to the question, he said there was a condition based withdrawal plan for july 2011. he said no. would we withdraw our troops based on conditions on the grounds are on an arbitrary date regardless of conditions? >> we are talking about the beginning of a process, not the end of the process. approximately 60% of the can stand today is not controlled by the taliban or has significant influence. >> my question is, will the date of withdrawal of 2011 be based on an arbit

troops by july 2011.ome members have voiced concerns that such a date undercuts impressions of the u.s. resolve, gives the taliban and al qaeda a target beyond which they can wait us out. other members with a very different view of the war worry that july 2011 date is so flexible it offers no assurance that troops will be withdrawn. this is a legitimate item for debate, but i am doubtful the success or failure hinges on this point nearly as much as it does on the counterinsurgency strategy employed by allied troops, the viability of afghan security forces and most importantly, how the united states engages with pakistan. i have confidence that the addition of tens of thousands of u.s. and allied troops under the direction of general petraeus and mcchrystal will improve the security situation on the ground and in afghanistan. more uncertain is whether the training mission will succeed sufficiently to allow u.s. forces to disengage from combat duties in a reasonable time period. the most serious question, o

roughly 20,000 to 25,000 by the july timeframe. that is getting them in, getting them repaired, and obviously getting them on mission. >> when will we be at 30? >> later in the summer, summer, fall, and the precision there, one of the things the president did in his decision was to give the commander on the ground the flexibility to say what troops he wants when, and we are working our way through that with general mcchrystal, given that flexibility. it will take us awhile to be exact, but the vast majority of them will go by the summertime and certainly finish out by the fall. >> have we ever done that quickly before? >> yes. in iraq, we did more quickly, because we had a better infrastructure. wickes under less difficult circumstances. >> i do not know about say less difficult circumstances. >> i am getting a clean up on our side -- about the allied troops, our hope for 5000 to 7000 additional troops from those allies, and let me say i am glad, secretary clinton, that you hastened to add that the smaller deployments are also appr

unfortunately, the july 30, 2009 report to congress by the special inspector general for afghan reconstructionsaid c- stica does not have the capability to ensure that u.s. funds are managed effectively and spent wisely. the report in which cstica concurred, the technical representative in country for the contract, had limited experience and had been unable to make field visits to check performance. more resources have since been applied to this problem. but significant questions remain to discuss in this hearing, not only for cstica and d.o.d. but also for the department of state and for the holders of federal contracts. we are fortunate to have the assistance of three panels of expert witnesses to help us

>> i believe if we put the perception of that, because, in fact, i don't -- i don't view july 2011 as a deadline. i stview that as a point at whi time the president directed we will reduce combat forces but we will decide the pace and scope of that based upon conditions at that time. so i don't believe that is a

at the end of july. i had the opportunity to talk to people at the u.n. about the u.n.'s input. i talked to sergio at one stage when he came back to report to the security council in late july. at that open security council meeting in late july, members of the iraqi governing council came to new york. i had short conversations with them. also in late july, i went down to washington to talk to ambassador paul bremer, because i would be his partner on the ground and i wanted to redrink myself to him because -- reintroduce myself to him because he hasn't spoken lately. >> sir had not been deputy administrator. bremer wanted that to continue with me. his preference was that i should not be a deputy administrator, but the representative on the side of the c.p.a., the c.p.a. of u.k. interests. >> were you content with that? >> i said i would discuss it when i went back to london and see what my government wanted me to do and that was part of my discussions in early september so that issue was finally decided in london because i was going to do what my government wanted me to do so lon

again, july 2011 is not a cliff. it is the beginning of a gradual process of turning over responsibility for security to the afghans over a period of time as conditions on the ground permit. >> mr. secretary, and madam, if i can just -- i'll probably, this is probably a sentiment shared by all of you. if i may, then, what is not terrific and what is not great is that if at the end of 18 months we begin to withdraw and this terrorist groups then begin to retake afghanistan. that is not something that i think the american people want, or the administration wants. but let me just say this, then. is well known@@@@@ h hsd@ r goals of about 134,000 for the army by the end of 2010. we got speck goals. we assess it annually. very focused what it's going to take to train them, retain them and recruit them and retrain them. we know those are concerns as well. we've got strong leadership in place to get at this. new leader sthop get at this. this is really for general mcchrystal after security his top effort. >> time of the gen

general, the president set july 2011 as when the u.s. will begin to redeploy out of afghanistan. is this a conditions-based target that will be ajust if the afghan security forces or afghan government is not ready? is the process conditions based? and what are those conditions? >> sir, i view it is a solid decision the president has made. and i operate under the assumption that we will begin to decrease our forces beginning in july of 2011. but i do that in the context that the president is also providing the people of afghanistan a long-term strategic partnership, a guarantee that we are going to be partners with them over the long haul and help them continue to protect their security and their sovereignty. i think that while everything is conditions based,ive think it will be informed by conditions we're about to put 30,000 more americans and additional coalition forces and go hard at this insurgency over the next 18 months, between now and june 2011. my expectation is, the insurgency will be less robust in the summer of 2011, signific

committee that looks over stem cell lines, to see if they live up to the guidelines issued back in july by obama's executive order, caller: and the consent form wat these lines [unintelligible] there was the idea for how of the pancreas develops and helps in terms of diabetes. it was recommended to me that these lines be approved, but that they be restricted on circumstances that would fit. after considering recommendations, i had to agree. that is the reason for the stipulation. these lines have been a novelized. -- have been anonymized. because this is such a visible area, there are so many justifiable level concerns, i felt that this was a circumstance where we should honor the original consent. >> we're hearing from stem cell researchers who are wondering how many more of these lines are going to get approved or not. can you say anything about your expectations for more lines being approved? >> there are more than 100 in the pipeline. if they were derived any fashion that is concordant with the nih guidelines in july, it can be done rather quickly through the it ministration process

and those in july from the obama executive order looked at these lines and looked at the consent.and the consent said these cells are to be study in embryo term, and with an idea of understanding how the pancreas develops and how it works with diabetes. i didn't feel comfortable with that language and recommended that these lines be approved but restricted to fit that consent. and after considering the recommendations i had to agree, and hence the stipulations. reasonable people don't always come to the same conclusions, as these lines have been stripped of identifiers. and some argue that the consent no longer applies. that's not how my committee feels. because of this area i felt as my advisors this is a circumstance to honor the terms of the original consent. >> there are a lot of lines of the pending list and hearing from stem cell researchers of the lines from march will get approved. can you say anything about your expectations for the lines? >> there is more than 100 in the pipeline. the guidelines for them could follow two pathways, if they follow the accordance establishe

on july 1, we will make the first withdrawal. thatç is what i understood -- >> inw3 july, 2011.ow do you recognize it -- reconciled that with how you begin to assess it in january, 2011. and then the assessment -- if it 2011. is that possible? ç>>çç senator, we will be mag constant assessment with a formal assessment a year from çyçççççóqçw3w3çnow. in july, 2011, içççç believe president has given us instructions to start to reduce u.s. force numbers, but that the w3pace and scope ofç that, how: the assessments on the ground. [[ççxçl -- çnot a battalion or a squadn could goç home. and thenyç say, now[[q+x we sr withdrawal. to do that. >> i hope to see you all next month. çif everything goesçó!gell, l ççów3ççç;÷>> what you havew withdrawal of the senate from -- we will transfer to afghan lead in areas. çit may not wait until july, 2010. çi do believe the president was us to understand that we are going to start a reduction in forces in july, 2011. >> that will be determined on the quantity and the timing of that. it may be a long period, it may b

>> the "60 minutes" interview was filmed in july.before this process and before that guidance. there is no intent or connection with that. the discussion in london, there is no intent on my part to influence for negatively impact the decision making process. i regret the intent thought of for that. >> it was a same day people were meeting in the white house to discuss the way forward? >> i was not aware of that at the time. >> ambassador, i would like to ask you to questions. the first, in your testimony, you are talking up the nea -- let me get to the page -- to adjust our efforts to promote a government that the judge did levels. do you believe this is achievable under the current constitutional system that of afghanistan has in? would you prefer to see another system that devolved power that would make this more compatible with the history and culture of afghanistan? >> i think the limiting factor is not the framework of the constitution. the limiting factor that exists is the difficulties of the government of afghanistan has afte

mr obama announced last week tt a dawdown would begin in july 2011. fense secretary robert gates and secreta of state hillary clinton elaborat the sundayalkhows. this is atransition that's goingo take place. and it's not an ashtraire -- arbitra date. obiously the transition will begin in the less contested areas of t country but it ll be the sa kind of gradual-conditions based transition provce by province, distct by district that wsaw in iraq. >> woodruff: those conditions will be dermined in part by t eadiness of afghan scurity forces. training them is ainchpin of the presidt's strategy. but ere was another reminder today tha much of the fight remained bend ghanistan. synchronid bombings in a marketplace killed a least 36 people in lahore, pakist, near the indian borde a massiveireengulfed parts of the moonmarket uring its busie time of thday. and hours earlier a suicide bomber killed at least n people in the pakistani ci of peshawar nearhe afghan border. >> lehrer: now >> lrer: now to our interview with admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint ch

"buck" mckeon of california asked if the july 2011 timetable would tie mcchrystal's hands. >> do you feel that you will have the flexibility a year from now, december of 2010, to ask for additional forces if your assessment at that point points to those additional forces needed for success? >> i believe i'll have the responsibility to give my best military advice, whichever the direction the situation is going. i do not anticipate the requirement to ask for additional forces. >> holman: on the other hand, some democrats questioned whether the troop increase actually would improve the situation in afghanistan. chellie pingree represents maine. >> in my opinion, we've reached a security plateau where no matter how many troops we commit, how many dollars we spend, how many aid workers we send, or elections that we have or re- have in afghanistan, we cannot significantly improve the security situation. >> holman: later, the two men crossed the capitol to testify before the senate's armed services committee. meanwhile, "the new york times" reported the obama administration has put intense

this study reveals as did the head steady which released in july -- the hud study we released in julylmost families are on the rise. we found an increase of 56% in the rural and suburban family home with us. we see homelessness is not simply an urban problem, but one of every community is increasingly struggling with in these economic times. as diverse as our homeless population is, there is one thing everybody shares -- a lack of housing they can afford. as this study finds, high housing costs often leave families to cut back other necessities like food. that's why i want to reiterate clearly what i have said before. the federal government is back in the business of affordable rental housing. you need only look at a $14 billion hud is investing through the recovery act to see we are from our $2 billion investment in full funding of project a developments to the funding to stabilize affordable housing developments financed by the low income housing tax credit, the single most sort -- single most important source of funding today. our fiscal year 2010 budget bill on these investments,

that date starts in july 2011. >> what they say they will not be ready in july 2011?>> will have assessments throughout this process that will measure us attaining the goals leading up to that point. the president has been clear. the transition point begins on july 2011 because the pentagon says that is the point at which the mission will be able to do that. >> that is what they say now. but if they change what is the point, then -- >> you are discussing that and the president is clear on july 20 -- 2011. >> any change from friday -- i was unclear on what the present was just suggesting for using tarp money for a jobs bill. where does that stand right now? >> that is something that this white house is looking at. i will repeat what the president says and not get ahead of what he will be talking about tomorrow, but one of the things that the report that trait made mention of is that -- that jake made mention of it that you -- if you compare the amount of money consider necessary then and what is necessary now, it will be 144 billion. the white house is looking at wheth

in july we ask a question whether the economy was getting better or worse and july they said gettingbetter july they said getting worse parker today 28% says getting better and getting worse. virtually unchanged. in other words, they don't think the economy is getting better, the american people. let's look at the question of who the american people think did a better job handling the economy? they give president obama met a 9 percent edge, a 45 percent over 36%. in july he had a 22% margin, a 54/32. let me briefly explain the questions that we asked that i will be happy to take your questions. on how president obama handles the economy, a 51% say disapprove and 44% approve of his handling of the economy. on health care, 56% disapprove of president obama's handling, 36 percent approve. creating jobs coming 56% disapprove, a 37% approve. asked to rate the nation's economy coming o% say it is excellent. 7% it is good. 91% not so good or poor. when asked again getting better or worse or stay the same 20% say getting better, 28% worse and 40 percent stays the same. asked whether presiden

forces from afghanistan will begin in july of 2011.and that promise, of course, has been reinforced, but rather ambiguously by the secretary of defense, secretary of state, and national security advisers. i watched them all on sunday's shows. all of those individuals cautioned that the completion of the withdrawal will be conditioned on concrete progress towards our strategic objectives on the ground in afghanistan. and that promise to begin the withdrawal at a certain date and the stipulation that the pace of withdrawal will be conditional, strike many of us as fundamentally inconsistent. for two reasons. if conditions on the ground are paramount, it's not really possible to predict a date, when withdrawal will make sense. and two, conditions on the ground are dependent on a wide array of variables, many of which are beyond our control, including the strength of the enemy force and readiness of the afghan forces to assume responsibility. so if you could answer yes or no, please, if u.s. troop withdrawal is truly dependent on the condi

forces would begin withdrawing in july of 2011 and this was your response. i think it's the judgment of all of us in the department of defense involved in this process that we will be in a position in particularly uncontested areas where we will begin to transition by 2011. is that a correct statement? >> that sounds right. >> so if this is correct, the drawdown occurs only when the areas are uncontested. so in other words, we redeploy when we accomplished clear hold and build; correct; correct >> correct. can you name one province in where we have u.s. forces or intended to send u.s. forces that's currently uncontested? >> i would have to look at the intelligence reports and get that back to you. >> admiral mullen? >> general mcchrystal's plan overall is to send the bulk of the u.s. forces to the east and to the south which are very contested. we've got forces out in the west where there well could be -- where there is not that significant of an insurgency, for instance, some forces out there and coalition forces as well. >> i think it's safe to say that we

on the other hand, "by july 2011, we're going to move into a transition phase where we're drawing ourkroft: right. >> obama: there shouldn't be anything confusing about that. that's... >> kroft: well... >> obama: first of all, that's something that we executed over the last two years in iraq. so i think the american people are familiar with the idea of a surge. in terms of the rationale for doing it, we don't have an afghan military right now, security force, that can stabilize the country. if we are effective over the next two years, that then frees us up to transition into a place where we can start drawing down. now, the other point of confusion, i think, that at least the press has identified is this notion of, "well, what happens on july 2011?" >> kroft: right. what does happen? >> obama: and what i've said is... is that we then start transitioning into a drawdown phase. how many u.s. troops are coming out how quickly will be determined by conditions on the ground. >> kroft: so, if the situation is not going well in july of 2011, you can decide-- and i'm not making light of this-

troops by july 2011. some members have voiced concerns that such a date undercuts impressions of the u.s. resolve, gives the taliban and al qaeda a target beyond which they can wait us out. other members with a very different view of the war worry that july 2011 date is so flexible it offers no assurance that troops will be withdrawn. this is a legitimate item for debate, but i am doubtful the success or failure hinges on this point nearly as much as it does on the counterinsurgency strategy employed by allied troops, the viability of afghan security forces and most importantly, how the united states engages with pakistan. i have confidence that the addition of tens of thousands of u.s. and allied troops under the direction of general petraeus and mcchrystal will improve the security situation on the ground and in afghanistan. more uncertain is whether the training mission will succeed sufficiently to allow u.s. forces to disengage from combat duties in a reasonable time period. the most serious question,

but in july he had a 22% margin, 54% to 32%. now, let me briefly explain some of the questions we asked and the results, and then i'll be happy to take your questions. on the basic question of how president obama's handling the economy, 51% say disapprove, 44% approve of his handling of the economy. on health care, on health care 56% disapprove of president obama's handling of the economy, 36% approve. on creating jobs, 56% disapprove, 37% approve of the president's handling of that issue. asked to rate the nation's economy these days, 0% say it is excellent. 7% say it's good. 91% say it's not so good or poor. when asked again, is it getting better, getting worse, or staying the same, 28% say getting better. 28% say getting worse. 43% say it's staying the same. asked whether president obama's policies have helped the economy, hurt the economy, or haven't made a difference, 37% say it's helped the economy. 28% says it's hurt the economy. excuse me, 37% say it's helped the economy. in the future america, 43% think that president o

does this mean than that you stop that process in wait until july? >> not at all. >> some of these districts could already transition prior to that date. >> we will transition as soon as we can, as soon as they are in a position to take the lead and that is really going to be up to general mcchrystal. i think by and large, it will be district by district. and, so we are by no means with this approach waiting until july 2011, but that is a very clear date president has set and one with which we will very strictly comply. >> within the next couple of months. >> theoretically could but that is up to the boss out there. >> admiral the other the president karzai said that the u.s. may have to be responsible or will be responsible for paying for troops, paying for their troops past 2020 i believe. is that-- you have a reaction to that or is that something that your secretary gates or the president took into account when you were developing the afghan strategy? >> we all recognize there is the significant cost on the manpower side if you will of the afghan

you know we pay attention to the dynamite at pearl harbor but here was the match in july of 1905. roosevelt said to japan, you can expand to korea. japan is an island nation. for them to expand into asia, the first had to get korea and if they didn't get korea they were bottled up. there expansionism was finished. carillo wanted-- japan wanted korea. they desired korea. theodore roosevelt green lit the expansionism. imagine my surprise when i found that in the summer of 1905, president theodore roosevelt helped create the problem that president franklin roosevelt would later have to deal with out there in the pacific. theodore roosevelt was taking these actions not for any malevolence reason, but he thought this was a very beneficial and move. he thought it was a great progressive move and would help millions of asians. why did the think this way? we have to go back to 1905. in 1905 america was an east coast eurocentric country. dÉjÀ was the mysterious oriental far away. we weren't translating each other's books and newspapers. we knew very little about each other. roosevelt had n

i read some of john sars' final reports at the end of july, and when i came to it on the ground to jump forward and ants your question, i did indeed find that the coalition's capabilities were not fully up to the business of administering iraq. and was not fully in charge of the whole -- in iraq, because the military were operating separately from the coalition authority. >> so the military was operating quite separately from the coalition? >> in terms of lines of reporting? >> right. >> the only place at which the apex of administration of iraq came together between the military pillar and the civilian pillar, which was the c.p.a., was in the pentagon. the deputy secretary of defense and the secretary of defense were the first points at which iraq was being administrated from one desk. >> so when you got there, you found a disfunctional c.p.a. how did you go about determining what you would do and how you would influence u.k. -- exert u.k. influence on that? >> well, i was in london before i went. when it was agreed that i would not be deputy administrator by u.k. special representativ

explain the difference. >> the difference is that july 2011 is the beginning of the end. that may mean a brigade leaves, a company leaves. it's trying to set, to focus the afghanistan government's mind on this date. what they did not talk about in the language that they use is the slope of withdrawal. in other words, how fast the americans leave, when they lee. and for secretary gates in particular to talk about that, that very much is colored by his experience in afghanistan in the 1980s in testimony before the hill right after the announcement was made. he said we cannot abandon this country as we did in the 1980s. and that's what he is referring to. it is not a timetable to leave as we have in iraq right now. >> and this is how the two discussed it on nbc's meet meet meet the press. the interview taped on saturday. response to our discussion with scott wilson on the issue of exist strategy or what exactly the july 2011 deadline means. >> we're not talking about an exit strenal or a drop-dead deadline. what we're talking about is an assessment that in january 2011 we ca

that was in july.ificantly expanded our footprint around kanduhar and the kabul province. the insurgent realize these forces were not their only to secure the elections but they were going to stay. that had a huge impact on the insurgents because we put much more pressure on the leadership and their chain of command, their logistics, they're safe havens which made it difficult for them to concentrate and project their power. they are more in a survival mode now than they are able to gain the initiative. i think that is one reason we did not seek well-synchronized attacks happening in southern afghanistan and the last 12-16 months. -- in the last 12-16 months. >> general mcchrystal talked about an 18 month schedule. >> he is taking a regional approach including pakistan and the whole of the afghanistan. i am in the position that i took it regional approach focusing on southern afghanistan. we proved that the concept is right. if you deployed more forces in july and august, you will see the effect that y

in july 2011, our generals are confident that they will know whether our strategy is working, and the plan to is begin transferring areas of responsibility for security over to the afghan security forces with us remaining in a tactical and then strategic overwatch position, sort of the cavalry over the hill. but we will begin to thin our forces and begin to bring them home. but the pace of that, of bringing them home, and where we will bring them home from will depend on the circumstances on the ground and those judgments will be made by our commanders in the field. >> regardless of the circumstances, though, what you're saying is that withdraw will take place at that point. >> it will be begin in july of 2011, but how quickly it goes will very much depend on the conditions on the ground. we will have a significant number of forces in there for some considerable period of time after that. host: so stephen hayes, do you hear the word deadline in there? >> well, it was a very direct question from david gregory sthrks a deadline? well, really, it's a beginning of a long-term -- so he den

and we'll measure it up to july 11th, 2011, and then make some decisions there. but i for one having been in this for a long time, am optimistic here that the military and the afghan government, if they get their act together, they can pull it off. >> your bigger concern though is what? >> the legitimacy of the afghan government as we go forward. can they rise to the occasion, and karzai in particular, and build capacity in this government to gain legitimacy with their own people? that's the challenge. and that's why i think we are going to see more pushed down to the level of 34 providences or states in afghanistan. but president karzai has a real mission here. to clean up his act, if i can be that blunt, and provide this sort of leadership for all afghan people to build a better future, to take this opportunity, which is an opportunity for him, and build on it. if he doesn't do it, then his country, the afghan people, and the entire region, which includes two nuclear powers, and india and china. all of that region then becomes unstable. and i think that's not a

july 1932. and as i am reading these little excerpts, compare it to what's happening today. quote, one of the tragedies of this depression is the fact that young college and professional school graduates are unable to find jobs. some have been looking for work for two years. others are driving bakery trucks or working as clerks in stores. also, throughout this entire time, and bear in mind, here is a sole practitioner trying to make enough money to feed a wife and three kids. and he was still able to maintain his equilibrium throughout the entire depressi depression, and he writes at one point, if it weren't for the suffering that it has caused, i would say that the depression has brought with it a good many worthwhile results. among other things, library circulation has tripled, and people are once again turning to home pleasures and simple living. i think a lot of that is true today also. he then gets into the whole question of how much the government should be doing. and you can watch his thinking changed through the period of the 10 years that are covered by this particu

bill in july, i predicted then it would stay in the bill, it would get to the president's desk. i still think it will and i think it will be a good, strong public option that keeps prices down, that makes the insurance companies honest. and that's the whole point of it. >> imagine you're harry reid. how do you get either, "a," you get four conservative votes from the democratic caucus, or, "b," pass the bill with viewer than 60 senators supporting it? >> well, you get those four -- those 60 votes, all four of them, all 60 of us by continuing to talk, continuing to be in these meetings as all of -- many of us are that care so passionately about this. ultimately you bring people together and say we need this, you're leaders in the party. four of these people we're talking about, three of them are committee chairs. all of them are on one of the two most prestigious committees in the senate. they're getting all kinds of push from home to vote for this. the public wants the public option overwhelmingly. democratic activists want the public option. it clearly, according to all polls,

discounts to the purchases of name brand prescription drugs in the medicare part-d program beginning july 1. children under 18 cannot be denied for preexisting coverage. free preventive coverage for seniors. the doughnut hole for seniors, a $500 reduction. again, the issue with medicare, i want to say, when we started this effort to reform health care, medicare was in trouble and could be in serious trouble by 2017. this legislation adds ten more years to medicare. to be specific to alaska, and i'll be brief on this, but i think it is important, many of these issues i laid out are important to alaska but there are quite a few very specific. first remind folks what the impact is currently in alaska. 133,000 alaskans do not currently have insurance. 27,000 residents who now buy expensive individual premiums would get affordable new coverage. we'll be covering more children, doubling the amount of what we called -l denali kid kaeurbgs what we call here in washington schip to more than 15,000 young people, ending the hidden tax on families. about $119 million spent on uncompensated care avera

do the metrics have any influence on the july 2011 withdrawal and do the metrics need to be revised as a result of the new planning? >> congressman, i believe the metrics, they are still in place. they are useful. i do believe they will evolve over time because, as the conditions on the ground evolve and we collect even more data and look at it, i think it's important we keep being willing to evolve those to understand it so i expect those to be baseline metrics but i expect to inform that with many others as well, sir. >> the -- i know that you all are very metric driven. we've had many come and testify before congress that president karzai is going to be held accountable. do the metrics that you've developed, do they specifically include assessment for president karzai? >> congress dz mman, our -- our assessments, yes, they include the effectiveness of the government of afghan at the national level and as general mcchrystal said, assessments that are at the subnational level, as well. but, we have a robust plan of assessments at all levels. >> i know that prime minister brown has rep

monroe died a few weeks later july 4th, 1841 at the age of 73.the third american president to die on the july 4th and the last of the revolutionary war presidents. in his eulogy to monroe, john quincy adams, ann adams served monroe eight years as his secretary of state and had grown very close to him. in his eulogy to monroe, quincy adams told americans to compare the map of north america and 1783 with the map of that empire as it is now. the change more than that of any other man living or dead was the work of james monroe. behold him, strengthening his country for defense, sustaining her rights, dignity and honor abroad, smoothing her dissensions and consolidating her acerbities at home, strengthening and consolidating the federal edifice of his country's union until he was entitled to say like augustus caesar of his imperial city he had found her, build a brick and left her clavet and gleaming marble. such, my fellow citizens, was james monroe. and the last of our founding fathers. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] thank yo

secondly, with regard to the emphasis that you place on the date, july 2011, the transition date, i'm absolutely in line with general mcchrystal and how we look at this. afghanistan, they've -- they have a lot of insecurity based on their people. their people are insecure people based on their history, based on other nations withdrawing their support over time. they live in a very uncertain neighborhood. so they have an ambivalence about the long-term presence of the united states. they want us here because of that insecurity. but increasingly, they want to stand up and take charge of their own security. that was reflect indeed president karzai's speech. his own aspirations were to stand up and be in charge of its own security with army and police. so 2011, i agree with general mcchrystal, it's a good date to get the afghans moving forward and president karzai has shown that publicly. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have set am bashs goals for training and equipping afghan saerm and police forces. but it remains a

host: julie rovner, do you have a question for him?what's the single most important thing that you are looking for? if you could only pick one of these things in a final bill, what's your absolute most important thing? >> closing the doughnut hole. if you look at the polls, and i hate to say that people look at polls to make determinations about their policy, but get used to it, world, they do. and what you find is that it's a 65-plus ovulation that has the most skepticism about health reform and what it will mean for them. we believe that closing the doughnut hole will be an important ingredient in improving their health  security. host: david sloane of aarp, thanks for your time this morning. >> thank you for having me. host: the concept of this doughnut hole, we heard this before, what's the likelihood that somehow this will be closed by the date he mentioned? guest: i think it's fairly likely. congress looks at polls and they know particularly in mid term elections, which is coming up, seniors vote in disproportionate numbers. th

so it's the beginning of the process in july 2011, but no firm deadline on when the u.s.f afghanistan. that could ultimately be in 2012 or possibly beyond. james is a veteran joining us from fort hood, texas. go ahead. turn the volume down on your side, we can argue a lot better. [inaudible] >> james, are you with us? >> i did a 12 month tour in afghanistan and you could see that we were making a difference over there. i fully support the president. 100%. i just think it's kind of sad when i'm watching the presidential speech in 19 other cadets falling asleep in the audience. i think that's a little ridiculous. >> how do you think where making a difference in afghanistan? >> you can just tell that to people. we've are on ground there patrolling villages and the people there totally, some of them give us a lot of support and helps us a lot. i'm sure the overview is a lot better than what people get to see on television at home. >> james -- thank you for the call. >> it's sondra. i do support the president. i don't think there's any great scenario in this bull situation. i

and so i really didn't know how it was affecting me on july was about 20-years-old or 16-years-old. >> from your viewpoint now has a young adult, how has the care of learning disabilities -- learning disabled children change? >> the care has changed tremendously. the learning disabilities now, it's amazing. i mean, people go around. you can ask anybody but dyslexia is and they have a little idea, and that is much more than they had 30 years ago when it just came out. and vcss nobody really knows about it but dyslexia is much more common than everybody thinks. and there are 15 million people in america with learning disabilities. >> besides being an author you are a filmmaker and from a website called friends of quinn can you tell me about that? >> it is a social community all aware people with a learning disabilities can go talk

clear iis our expeation that on a gradual conditionsased premise, thawe will reduce our forc after july 2011. >> holman: the u.s. rolen afghanistan coinued to be deted in washington, as well. here at e capitol, the top americ commander and the u.s. ambassadoro afghanistan said th now are united in supporting the new plan,espite earlier reports they disreed on the need for moreroops. ambassador karl eikenber had expressed misgivings about a surge, in a seriesf leaked caes to washington. but he told the house armed services committ he now endorseshe approach advocated by general stanley mcchrtal. >> i am unequically in support of ts mission, and i am exactly aligned wi general mcchrystal herto my right in mong forward now to vigorously implemt the assigned mission. >> holman: the gener said he, too, w confident in the president's new war plan, including e provision to start withdring in 18 months. but he also suggesteit could take lger. >> resul may come more quickly, and we y demonstrate progress towardseasurable objeives, but the sober fact is that there are no sver bullets. ultimate su

and thirdly i have concerns about the july 2011 trigger for withdrawal that's been highlighted in the president's speech. talk about transition and exit ramps with an 18-month target to begin withdrawing. tell graphs to our enemies that all they need to do is persevere and through a few difficult fighting seasons. because the u.s. will retreat. so i'm also some also argue that withdrawal timelines make our troops wonder about the determination of washington to succeed and could undermine our efforts to secure greater cooperation from our allies. "the new york times" recently reported that the president's timetable for withdrawal of american forces in afghanistan rattled nerves in that country and in pakistan as well. prompting diplomats to scramble to assure that, reassure the two countries that we would not in fact cut and run. a fourth concern involves the problems of command and control. coordination with our allies and burden-sharing. our allies are being asked to provide more troops to help push the taliban out of center and north. some, such as the dutch, canadians, british and

tied into the field at any time they left burma or fast forward to the civil war from april of '94 to july of 1994, when the south seceded or tried to secede and every single dccc country backed it. so this one is no comparison to any of those five. and the old timers know this but newcomers forgiven if they don't see things in that context or background or perspective. with regard to palestine, it's the issue that's most emotionally of the cause of pain if people's heart. and it is also the issue with regard to the united states that protect their first and last resort is judged more in an indicted way than on any of the other issues outstanding in the region. one, because, it's the oldest issue. two, it's because it's seen as the largest issue impacting so many of the other conflicts and three, it's the most pervasive issue at the levels of the youth and those who are literate and watch the television in algiers who have read what has and what happens not. as last year's summit convened right when the operation was launched by the israelis for some 23 days in the gaza strip. and commenta