tv Today in Washington CSPAN December 16, 2009 2:00am-6:00am EST
south dakota but it isn't true when the president of the united states was a member of this body he co-sponsored this amendment? >> the president was a co-sponsor of this legislation when he served here last year. i do want to say as well when i talked about nexium just as an exit of the american consumer gets to pay ten times the cost? maximus for acid reflux probably a condition that will exist with some after this vote because my understanding is after seven days on the floor of the senate this now an arrangement by which the pharmaceutical industry will probably have sufficient votes safety and reads the stuff that could come right out of a copying machine for ten years, understand this. dr. peter roascht, former vice president of marketing for pfizer and formerly worked on europe in the parallel trading system says this -- quote -- "the biggest argument against reimportation of prescription drugs is safety. what everyone has recently forgotten to tell you is that in europe, reimportation of drugs
has been in place for 20 years." it is an insult, in my judgment, to the american people to say, oh, you can make this work in europe for the benefit of the consumer to get lower prices, but the americans don't have the capability to make this happen, don't have the capability to manage it. that is absurd, and i think the safety issue is unbelievably bogus. mr. mccain: and -- and -- i might ask my friend from north dakota again, haven't we seen this movie before? the movie i'm talking about is that have we have an amendment or legislation pending before the body or in committee that will allow for drug reimportation, as you just point out from that previous chart, in the totally safe manner and then there is always, thanks to the pharmaceutical lobbyist, of which i believe there are 535
pharmaceutical lobbyists -- a lobbyist and a half for every member of congress -- that an amendment passes that then basically prohibits the reimportation of drugs. haven't we seen this movie before? and apparent nowl that another deal was made so that they're now going to have sufficient votes to, again, cost the consumers of america $100 billion now in costs for the pharmaceutical drugs. and their representatives are here on the floor ready to tout the virtues of an amendment which, as we all know, is a killer amendment. let's have no doubt about that. mr. dorgan bil:mr.mr. dorgan: me senator is right that this is groundhogs day. it's 6:00 and the clock strikes 6:00 and the pharmaceutical industry wins. wwe've been doing it for ten years -- we just repeat the day over and over again. my hope is that we won't have to
repeat it today. my hope is that after a lot of work on a bipartisan piece of legislation, the american people will have sufficient support here on the floor of the united states senate to say it is not fair for us to be paying double and triple and ten times the cost that others in the world are paying. now, mr. president, i wonder if we might be able to yield some time to the senator from arizona five minutes by consent. unless the senator from arizona wishes to conclude. mr. mccain: my only conclusion is what we are seeing here is really what, i would ask my friend from north dakota, what contributes to the enormous cynicism in the american -- on the part of the american people about the way we do business here. this is a pretty clear-cut issue. as the senator from north dakota pointed out, it's been around for ten years. ten years we've been trying to hensure that consumers of ameria would be able to get at a lower
cost many times lifesaving prescription drugs, and the power of the special interests, the power of the lobbyists, the power of campaign contributions are now being manifested in the passage of a killer amendment which will then prohibit -- there's no objective observer who will attest to any other fact than the passage of the follow-on amendment, the side-by-side amendment, will probably the reimportation of prescription drugs into this country, which we all know is can be done in a safe fashion and could save americans who are hurting so badly a hundred billion dollars a year or more and cut the cost of the legislation before us by $19.4 billion. and to scare people to say that these drugs that are being reimported are not done in a
safe and -- a manner that will ensure that the american people health is not endangered is, of course, an old saw that -- and an old movie that we have seen before. it's regrettable. it's really regrettable that the special interests again prevail and the power of the pharmaceutical lobby. but i also want to say finally, i -- there are many traits that the senator from north dakota has that i admire. one of them is his tenacity. and i want to assure him that he and i rntle that , that i will s side as we go back and back and back again on this issue until justice and fairness is done and we defeat the special interests of the pharmaceutical industry which have tape over the white house and -- taken over the white house and will take thoafer vote thathisvote that w0 of the it is not one of the mostal micial chapters in the history of the united states senate or the united states -- most admiral chapters in the
history of the united states senate or the united states government. mr. dorgan: mr. president, i was going to yield five minutes to the senator from iowa, but if there's someone who wants to go -- is the senator from lautenberg seeking recognition? if not, i would ask the senator from iowa be recognized -- if so, i would ask the senator from iowa be recognized following the senator for five minutes. i recognize the senator from iowa for five minutes. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. 34 grassley: we have two key votes this afternoon on drug reimportation. mr. grassley: these votes mean that today is the day that we can show the american people whether we can really pass drug reimportation or whether the senate will give it lip service and nothing else. now, we have heard here on the floor the concerns that some have about drug importation and
whether or not it can be safe. everyone who knows me knows that i care deeply about drug safety. the fact of the matter is that the unsafe situation is what we have today. today, consumers are ordering drugs over the internet from who knows where and the f.d.a. does not know -- does not have the resources, in fact, to do much about anything about it. the fact is that legislation to legalize importation would not only help to lower the cost of prescription drugs for all americans but also should shut down the unregulated importation of drugs from foreign pharmacies that we have -- the situation we have today. the dorgan amendment, in fact, would improve drug safety, not
threaten it, and it would open up trade to lower-cost drugs. in 2004, my staff was briefed by the investigation that the permanent subcommittee on investigations of the senate governmental affairs committee conducted. that subcommittee conducted this investigation into what we would call going on right now, current drug importation. they found about 40,000 parcels containing prescription drugs come through j.f.k. mail facility every single day of the year. 40,000 packages each day. now, the j.f.k. airport houses the largest international mail branch in the united states, but even then, that is the tip of the iceberg. according to this subcommittee, each day, 30,000 packages of drugs enter the u.s. through miami. 20 thousand enter through
chicago. so that's another 50,000 more -- 20,000 enter through chicago. so that's another 50,000 more pabbages that enter the u.s. -- packages that enter the u.s. each day. and what's worse, about 20% of the drugs coming in are controlled substances. so we have a situation where we need the basic approach in this amendment to ensuring that imported drugs are safe. and that's what the dorgan amendment is all about, to give f.d.a. the ability to verify the drug pedigree back to the manufacturer, to require f.d.a. to inspect frequently and to require fees to give the f.d.a. the resources to do that. so the bomb tom line is the dorgan amendment gives the in f.d.a. the authority and the resources it needs to implement drug safety from court importation of drugs. and certainly the president
knows that a great way to hold drug companies accountable is to allow safe, legal drug importation, because i would like to quote this president not when he was a ca candidate for president but a candidate for the senate. this is what president obama said then -- quote -- "i urge my opponent to stop siding with the drug manufacturers and put aside his opposition to the reimportation of lower-priced prescription drugs. and now we're hearing about the secret deal with big pharma, that that was revised just this week to solidify support with pharma's allies for killing this very important dorgan amendment. the drug companies will do nothing. they will do anythin nothing toe united states -- or they'll stop at nothing to keep united states closed to other markets in order to charge hirer prices.
-- charge higher prices. so with the dorgan amendment, we're working to get the job done. what we need is to make sure americans have even greater, more affordable access to drugs by further opening the doors to commission in the global pharmaceutical industry. mr. president, americans are waiting. too often this thing has been stymied. it looks like there's another chance to stymie it. although i'm surprised. most of the times in the past that i've been for the importation of drugs, it was my colleagues over here that were trying to stymie it. but now it looks like on the other side. the presiding officer: the senator has used his five minutes. mr. grassley: i'd be surprised if floor privilegesdure the ermder of the debate on the health care reform legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: before i get to the core of my remarks, i want to tell my colleague who left the floor, you know, i was tempted to rise under rule 19
that says that "no senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by any form of words impugn to another senator or other senators any conduct unworthy of becoming a senator." you know, i could impute, if i wanted to i guess, that maybe there are some who really don't care about this amendment as much as they care about killing health care reform. but i wouldn't do that. i wouldn't done doe that. so i hope in the context of the debate rkt i'll not forced to rise under rule 19. mr. president, i rise in favor of the amendment of senator lautenberg, who is going to offer it shortly, because it does two things that underscore the gwire debate about health care reform. it protects the american people by putting the safety of families first, and there's a lot of brushing aside of safety here. safety is paramount. safety is paramount, and it lowers costs. and of course that's what this health care debate is all about. now, i appreciate the intentions
of the amendment that has been offered today on the floor. but in my view, it is regressivive. it hearkens back to a time when the lack of sufficient drug regulation allowed people to sell snake oil and magic elicks irrelevance that promised everything and did nothing. to allow the importation of untested, unregulated drugs made from untested and unregulated ingredients from 32 countries into the medicine cabinets of american families, without serious safety precautions, flies in the face of protecting the american people. and it's contrary to the context of health care reform. the amendment by senator lautenberg brings us around to the real purpose why we've been here on the floor, which is to create the type of reform that ultimately i gives greater healh insurance and greatest safety to the american people. they care about honest, real reform that makes health care affordable and protects american
people, protects them from the potential of counterfeit drugs that promise to cure but do absolutely nothing. just as we are here to protect them from insurance policies that promise to provide health care for a premium and then deny coverage and provide no health care at all. mr. president, basically what senator haute lawsuit's amendment is going to do is it modify's the dorgan amendment to allow reimportation but to do it when basic safety concerns to keep our prescription medications safe are complied with. it includes the dorgan importation amendment but adds one fundamental element of broader health care reform: it protects the american people from those who would game the system for profits at the expense of health and safety of american families. that's what this reform is all about. specifically, when it comes to the importation of prescription medication, this amendment will help us be sure that what we think we're buying in the bottle
is in fact what is in tha bottl. you know, i want to take this letter -- talk about a lot of safety and a lot of pooh-poohing, oh, there's no safety concerns. there is one entity in this country dhas responsible for safety when it comes to food and drugs it's called the f.d.a., the food and drug administration. in a letter from the f.d.a. commissioner, hamburg, she mentioned risks that must be addressed. first, she's concerned that some imported drugs may not be safe and effective because they were not subject to a rigorous regulatory review prior to approval. second, that the drugs may not be a consistently made, high-quality product because they were not manufactured in a facility that comply with appropriate good manufacturing products. third -- procedures, i should say. third, the drugs may not be substitutable with the f.d.a.-approved products because of differences in composition or
manufacturing. and, fowrnl, the drugs simply may not be what they purport to be because inadequate safeguards in the supply chain may have allowed contamination or, works counterfeit. and it addresses f.d.a. commissioner hamburg's statement of the amendment of my colleague from north dakota. and i quote -- "there are significant safety concerns relating to allowing the importation of nonbioequivalent products and safety issues" -- safety issues -- "related to distribution and labeling of foreign products and the domestic product that remaining to fully addressed in the amendment." senator lautenberg's amendment addresses this concern. it allows importation, but it protects the american people by requiring that before any drug is imported to the united states, it must be certified to be safe and to reduce costs.
so it does what the f.d.a. commissioner is talking about here. the agency responsible for protecting the american people. people may want to just not believe it, they may want to ignore it. but the fact is, this is the entity responsible in this country to protect the food supply and the drug supply. we want to be as certain as we possibly can of the conditions under which imported drugs are manufactured, that they are safe to use, and we know where their ingredients originated before they are imported. we want to be absolutely certain that patients are getting prescription medications that are the same in substance, quality, and quantity that their doctor has prescribed. this amendment requires the secretary of health and human services to certify that all imported drugs are safe and will reduce costs before they're allowed into america's medicine cabinets. and, you know, i've heard a lot about the european union here.
well, let's look at what the european union is now saying. they're constantly being offered on the floor for the reason why in fact we should follow what the european union is saying. well, let's see what happens if we allow unregulated importati importation. let's look at the european union. last week the european union commissioner in charge of this issue said, and i quote, "the number of counterfeit medicines arriving in europe is constantly growing." "the european commission is extremely worried." in just two months, the european union sees 43 million -- million, hear me -- tak -- fake. i don't want american families to see these fears come to life here, and i'm -- i believe that if we do not pass the lautenberg amendment and were to pass the dorgan amendment that we would
open the floodgates. the european union's experience all proves my scerns, not alleviates them, like the other side would suggest. you know, here's the problem. a $75 counterfeit cancer drug that contains half of the dosage that the doctor told you you needed to combat your disease doesn't save americans money and certainly isn't worth the price in terms of dollars or risk to life. let us not now open our national borders to insufficiently regulated drugs from around the world. it seems to me that real health reform, particularly for our seniors and those who are qualified under the medicare program that receive their prescription coverage under that, by filling the doughnut hole in its entirety, which we have declared we will do in the conference, as we are permitted
to, that provides for the coverage for prescription drugs that aarp talks about on barf of its millions of members. and that's what we want to see, not by unregulated reimportation. mr. president, we should have no illusions. keeping our drug supply safe in a global economy in which we cannot affect the motives and willingness of others to game the system for greed and profit will be a monumental but essential task. it would require a global reach, extraordinary vigilance to institute the highest standards in other parts of the world that have minimal standards now so we don't have to ask which drug is real and which is counterfeit. let me show some of those. people say, oh, no, this safety issue isn't really the case. tam i flew. we saw a rush when the h1n1 flu arrived. there's actually one ariewfd and one that's counterfeit. but the average person wouldn't
know the difference t or if it is aricept, a drug to slow the progression of alzheimer's disease. which one is the real one and which one is the counterfeit one? if i didn't tell from you the labels, you probably wouldn't know, but there is an approved one and a counterfeit one. and let me tell you, as someone who lost his mother to alzheimer's, i can tell you that having the wrong drug in the wrong dosage would not have helped her slow the progression of her illness. it makes a difference. let's look at others. lipitor -- very important. you're walking around with a real problem with cholesterol and ultimately you find yourself -- you think you're taking the appropriate dosage and the appropriate drug. which one is the real one? which is the counterfeit one? there is a counterfeit one and there's an approved one, a real
one. but if you're taking the counterfeit one and you think you're meeting your challenges and you might have a heart attack as a result of not having the real one. by the time you figure it out, it could be too late to reverse the damage. that's the problem. that's the global economy opening up possibilities at the end of the day. does the gentleman have an additional minute? mr. lautenberg: i yield an additional minute. mr. menendez: finally, this is a gamble we cannot afford to take. to open up the potential for these drugs or ingredients used in these drugs to find their way from nation to nation, from southeast asia where the problem is epidemic, to one of 32 nations listed into this amendment into the homes of american families. that's a gamble we cannot take. that is not about protecting our citizens. that is not about providing prescription drugs that ultimately meet the challenge of a person's illness.
filling the doughnut hole totally, which is what we're going to do, is the way to achieve it. so, i do hope that that's what we'll dovment i do hope that we will adopt senator lautenberg's amendment and defeat the dorgan amendment, for i fear for the safety of our citizens and, i fear, as to whether or not we can ultimately achieve filling that doughnut hole, if this amendment ultimately gets adopted. and i fear what that means for health care reform at the end of the day. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and thank the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator new jersey. mr. lautenberg: i call up amendment 3956 at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator new jersey, mr. lautenberg, for him caisson others, proposes an amendment numbered 3556 to amendment 2786. mr. lautenberg: scwi that the further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: mr. president, i rise today because one thing
we have to do as the progress with this health care reform bill is to make sure that prescription medicine in our country is safe and affordable, and i thank my colleague from new jersey for his excellent review of the conditions that cause us to add this amendment. to senator dorgan's amendment. that would allow potentially unsafe prescription drugs to be shipped across our borders and directly into the medicine cabinets of homes throughout america. now, i want to be clear, the effect of this plan, as the senator -- that senator dorgan has introduced could be
catastrophic. that's why president obama's administration has written to the congress expressing its serious concerns with the dorgan amendment. now, i appreciate the effort to try and lower prescription drug prices. after all, that's what we're doing about the whole health reform reru review is is to tryo get prices reduced so everyone can have safe and affordable health care. we want to make sure that people don't harm their health with any shortcuts. we all want americans to stay healthy and still have some money left in their pockets. but as much as we want to cut costs for consumers, we cannot afford to cut corners and risk exposing americans to drugs that are ineffective or unsafe. the fact is that this is a matter of life or death.
the european commission just discovered that counterfeit drugs in europe are worse than they feared. in just two months -- and i know that senator menendez made reference to this as well -- the e.u. seized 34 million fake tablets, including antibiotics, and cancer treatments. as the commissioner of the e.u. said, every fake drug is a potential massacre. even when a medicine only contains an ineffective substance, this can lead to people dying because they think they are fighting their illnesses with a real drug. americans buy meds to lower their encloses -- buy medicine to lower their cholesterol, fight cancer and prevent heart stkaoefplts imagine what would happen to a mother or a child if they start relying on medicine imported from another country only to find out years later
that the drug was a fake. imagine the heartbreak that might ensue if the medicine americans were taking was found to be harmful. the fact is drugs from other countries have dangerously high counterfeit rates, and importation could expose americans to those drugs. under the dorgan arpblgsd drugs could be imported from the former soviet union countries where the world health organization estimates that over 20% of the drugs are counterfeit. under the dorgan amendment, drugs that originated in china could find their way into our homes, and we know that china has been the source of many dangerous projects -- products in recent years from toys laced with lead to toothpaste made with antifreeze. if we're going to trust drugs from other countries, we need to be absolutely certain that we're not putting americans' lives at risk. and that's why the food and drug
administration went on record to express its concerns with the dorgan amendment. it says, "there are significant safety concerns related to allowing the importation of nonbioequivalent products, and safety issues related to confusion and distribution and labeling of foreign products and domestic products that remain to be fully addressed in the amendment." that's from the f.d.a. commissioner, margaret hamburg. now, there are problems that associate with the possibility of drugs coming to this country that are way different that that which is expected to be used in the treatment of sickness. when president obama's f.d.a. commissioner wrote, she also said that importing drugs
presents risks to patients because the drug may not be safe and effective, may not have been made in a facility with good manufacturing practices and may not be the drug it claims to be. and i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the f.d.a. be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: in light of the serious concerns raised by the obama administration, i am offering an amendment to require that the department of health and human services certify that the drugs are safe and will reduce costs before they're imported. my amendment is commonsense bipartisan alternative to the dorgan amendment. in fact, it is the same exact language as the dorgan importation amendment, but with certification requirement that is so important to ensure safety. mr. president, if we're going to allow the importation of drugs
from other countries, we've got to be certain that they are safe and affordable. and i, with this amendment, would be able -- would be a supporter of the dorgan amendment. only certification by health experts will provide that assurance. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, my amendment and oppose the dorgan amendment. mr. president, we have no way of knowing what the working conditions might be like in a plant or a facility or the sanitary conditions in other countries, or whether in the process of packing and shipping that temperatures might be -- might not be(@ carolina.
the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak about drug re-importation. with millions of seniors balancing drug regimens that entail taking several medicines per day on a fixed income, i believe we need to find a way to ensure they have access to affordable drugs. if we could reduce the cost of drugs with re-importation and guarantee the safety of those
drugs, i would be very supportive. however, i have serious doubts that we can adequately ensure the safety of our drug supply with drug re-importation amendment proposed by my colleague from north dakota. even without re-importation, the u.s. has had trouble with counterfeit drugs. at the height of the h1n1 epidemic this fall, the f.d.a. was warning consumers to be wary of counterfeit h1n1 treatments. these counterfeits came from foreign online pharmacies. in one instance the f.d.a. seized so-called kpupb kpupb treatment tablet from india and found them to contain talc and as seat met fin. -- acetomophin. the suns discovered about 800 alleged packages of tpa*eul fake
or prescription drugs including viagra and claritin and shut down 68 alleged rogue online pharmacies. counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs are appearing on the market at alarming rates. in 2007 drugs comprised 6% of the total counterfeit products seized. in one year they've now jumped to 10% of all counterfeit product seizures. this growing problem is all about unscrupulous criminals preying on the sick and the elderly who are in desperate need of cheaper drugs. but the consequences are harmful and in some cases deadly. officials estimate that some of these counterfeit drugs contained either a dangerous amount of active ingredients or were placebos. some counterfeits include toxic chemicals such as dry wall material, antifreeze and even yellow highway paint. according to a recent "washington post" article, tracing the origins of drugs such as cyalis and viagra took
investigators across the globe and back again. supposedly these drugs came from a warehouse in new delhi through the online company selling the drugs headquartered in canada with a license to sell medicine in minnesota. however, when federal officials investigated the drugs' origins further, they actually found that the online web site was registered in china. its server was hosted in russia and its headquarters had previously been listed in louisiana and on a local level here near our capitol, the "baltimore sun" yesterday reported on the death of the university of maryland pharmacologist cary john. she suffered an allergic reaction to a legal drug in the u.s. but purchased illegally from the philippines. apparently the counterfeit drug so closely resembled the legal version that two pharmacologists conducting the analysis after
ms. johns' death could not tell the difference. local police have yet to identify the contents of the counterfeit drug. a few of my colleagues have already mentioned the letter sent last week by f.d.a. commissioner margaret hamburg outlining the safety concerns that the f.d.a. has about re-importation. specifically, the f.d.a. stated that importing non-f.d.a.-approved prescription drugs posed four potential risks to patients. let me go over those four risks. the first, the drug may not be safe and effective because it did not undergo the rigorous f.d.a. regulatory review process. number two, the drug may not be consistently made high-quality product because the facility in which it was manufactured was not reviewed by the f.d.a. third, the drug may not be substitutable with the f.d.a.-approved product because of differences in composition or manufacturing. and, fourth, the drug could be
contaminated or counterfeit as a result of inadequate safeguards in the supply chain. if the agency that oversees drug safety is saying it would have difficulty guaranteeing the safety of our nation's drug supply with preimportation, i have grave concerns, particularly since the f.d.a. is already underfunded and understaffed. but let's take a moment to examine how europe, which does allow re-importation, has fared in terms of safety. british authorities say counterfeit drugs often exchange hands between pheuplgd men and are repackaged multiple times before reaching a legitimate hospital or pharmacist. this creates opportunities for counterfeit products often produced in china and shipped to the middle east to penetrate the european market. in 2008, british authorities identified 40,000 doses of counterfeit kasodex. the presiding officer: the senator has used five minutes.
mrs. hagan: mr. president, i would like to ask for about three more minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: thank you. in 2008 the british authorities identified 40,000 doses of counterfeit caseodex, a hormone treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. the european union seized 34 million fake tablets at custom points in all member countries. in other countries around the world the world health organization estimates that up to 30% of the medicines on sale may be counterfeit. as a result, numerous people have died. earlier this year 80 infants in nigeria died from teething medicine that contained a toxic coolant. and in bangladesh some died from a poisonous syrup. the dorgan amendment does not require imported drugs to be f.d.a.-approved or meet the f.d.a. misbranding standards. furthermore, it does not prevent
criminals in other countries prosecute repackaging imported drugs. although our safety system is not perfect, we have a thorough f.d.a. review system for drug safety that actively involves physicians, pharmacists and patients. as a result, americans can be generally confident that our medications are safe and contain the ingredients on the bottle. mr. president, supporters of re-importation argue that the sick and elderly need an alternative way to obtain affordable drugs. however, a study by the london school of economics found that in the european union middle men reaped most of the products with relatively little savings passed down to the consumer. nothing in the dorgan amendment requires the savings to be passed on to the consumer, leaving the door wide open for unscrupulous, profit-seeking third parties to get into the reapportion gain. in the u.s. we're already trying to reduce the cost of prescription drugs through the
use of generics. this is one of the most effective ways for customers to reap savings and the generic dispensing rate at retail pharmacies is close to 65%. the f.d.a. is working with stakeholders to develop drug re-importation policy. with the f.d.a. looking into this and significant outstanding safety concerns, i cannot in good conscience support the amendment offered by my colleague from north dakota. instead, i will support the amendment by my colleague from new jersey. the lautenberg amendment will allow the importation of drugs only if the secretary of hepblgt and human services certifies that doing so would save money for americans and would not adversely affect the safety of our drug supply. it is critical that all americans, especially our nation's seniors, have access to affordable drugs. it's imperative that we not compromise the safety of u.s. drugs on the market. after all, what are good cheap
drugs if they are toxic or ineffective? thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: yes, mr. president. i believe that my colleague from north dakota intends to make further remarks. how much time do we have on our side, please? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey controls 13 minutes. mr. lautenberg: 13 minutes. mr. president, if senator dorgan is here and we're trying to accommodate a colleague who wants to speak on this -- but how much time is left on the dorgan side of the issue? the presiding officer: 28 minutes.
mr. lautenberg: 28 minutes. mr. president, we heard about what has happened -- happening in the e.u. having to do with the question of whether or not drugs are counterfeited and the serious consequence of having people take a medication that is not what it's supposed to be and the consequences of something like that, especially interfaced -- as it interfaces with other products. now in -- there was a news report last week that was printed in the yahoo news system and they -- they quote the commissioner of the european --
the program that -- in europe controls are at least attempts to see that the european union has a -- issues a concern about the situation that they see there and the commissioner, mr. berhagan, said that he expected the u.e. -- the e.u., rather, to take action to fight the menace of fake pharmaceuticals. and he said that he thought the e.u. would agree in 2010 that a drug's journey from manufacture to sale should be scrutinized carefully and that there will be special markings on the packages. there is a lot of concern about this, mr. president. and we ought not to dash willy-nilly through here without understanding what the consequences of fake medication
might be. i want to see our people pay as little as they can to get the medicines that -- that they need and part of that is -- has to include a safety factor. and, as i said earlier, we would not suggest anything in the health reform bill that would say -- take the shortcut and -- and disregard safety. i have a letter that was sent from the department of health and human services, which i quoted a little bit ago. but we say that the letter is being sent on amendment filed by senator dorgan and the administration supports the program, which i agree to buy
safe and effective drugs from other countries and include included $5 million in our 2010 budget. now they go on to say, and this is from mr. hamburg, the commissioner of food and drugs, approving nonf.d.a. prescription drugs presents four potential risks to patients that must be addressed. the drug may not be safe and effective because it was not subject to rigorous regulatory review or that the drug may not be consistently made high-quality product because it was not manufactured in a facility that complies with good, appropriate manufacturing practices. ored, thirdly, the drug may not be substitutable with the f.d.a. product because of composition or manufacturing. the drug may not be what it purports to be because it has been contaminated or is a counterfeit due to inadequate
covers the testimony. >> we'll turn to the witnesses for their testimony. without objection, all witnesses may place their written statements in the record. and i will recognize members for questioning at the point where we left off last week. so those who do not have an opportunity to question our witnesses last week will get the first chance to ask questions today. the staff has sent out specific information about the order in which members will be recognized. and now we'll go to the hearing. last week the committee heard from secretary clinton, secretary gates and admiral mullen, three of the president's top security advisors. they did an excellent job in making the administration's case for the new strategy in afghanistan and pakistan. today we welcome the top american officials on the ground in afghanistan. ambassador carl w.ikanberry and
general stanley a. mcchrystal, the commander of all united states and international forces in afghanistan. the president and his team have made it very clear that our efforts to degrade the taliban and defeat al qaeda cannot stop at the durand line. indeed, nearly all of the jihadi groups operating in pakistan and afghanistan, al qaeda, the pakistani taliban, the afghan taliban, the akani network, l.e.t. and others have joined together in an extended terrorist network that shares the same goals, including destabilizing afghanistan and destroying the pakistani state. fortunately, there appears to be a growing recognition in pakistan that it is impossible to differentiate between different terrorist groups. and that the same people killing american, international and afghan troops are now arming suicide bombers in the streets and markets of pakistan and killing pakistani civilians.
we sympathize with the plight of the pakistani people who have suffered great losses from the growing number of terrorist attacks in that country. as reflected in the legislation recently passed by congress, we are committed to doing what we can to improve their economic and physical security. as all of our witnesses emphasized in last week's hearing, the president's military strategy in afghanistan can only succeed if it is accompanied by a robust civilian surge. designed to improve governance, strengthen the rule of law and promote economic development in both afghanistan and pakistan. this fact often gets lost in the debate about troop levels and the timeframe for withdrawal. and we must make sure that these civilian critical civilian programs aren't shortchanged. to that end, ambassador iconberry, will you have enough cape aable civilians on the
ground to help strengthen governance. will these civilians have sufficient knowledge in these areas to be effective? will they have sufficient experience operating in dangerous environments. like afghanistan? and are 974 civilians as the administration proposed having on the ground by early next year, all we need? if not, when will you be able to tell us exactly how many are required? what will your new military campaign plan include that the august plan did not? with regard to the military strategy, i am curious. one of the keys to our success in iraq was the sunni awakening in which thousands of sunni tribesmen, many of whom had participated in or aided the insurgency, essentially switched to our side. is there any prospect of a similar shift in afghanistan? can we succeed in afghanistan without such an awakening?
finally, general mcchrystal, will 30,000 troops, even with an additional 7,000 apparently pledged by other nations, be sufficient to break the taliban's momentum? can we meet the president's objective of degrading the taliban by focusing primarily on the south, when the taliban is already operating in the north? what types of soldiers, trainers, civil affairs, infantry, will comprise this 30,000 increase? now i'm pleased to return to the ranking member, miss ross-lehtonen for any remarks she would like to make and then we'll proceed to the testimony of our distinguished witnesseses. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, general mcchrystal and ambassador eikenberry, for months we have been requesting your presence so we're extremely pleased that the administration has now authorized you to provide testimony. welcome, sirs. last week we received a broad presentation, when the chairman asked secretary clinton, if she
knew the resources that will be needed for the civilian surge. she was unable to provide specifics, adding that the administration, and i quote will be submitting budget requests in the numbers that need to be had. 0 so we await a more detailed assessments on what you need to prevail against our enemy. before we look forward, we must present an accurate portrayal of the last eight years in afghanistan, the progress that has been achieved, and the challenges that lay ahead. claims of failure from some are an affront to our brave men and women, such as my daughter in law, lindsay, who served as a marine officer in afghanistan in 2007. it minimizes their accomplishments. and let me briefly contrast afghanistan in 2001, to afghanistan now. the taliban is not in power. does not control afghanistan. while our enemies are rebuilding, afghanistan has not been used to launch attacks
against a u.s. homeland. there are serious problems with corruption. but there is a duly-elected government in power. one that is an ally of the united states. and afghan women and girls have unprecedented access to the health and education servicings and are integrated into afghan society. as ambassador eikenberry noted this week, afghanistan has come a long way since the dark days of the taliban. and i have witnessed this progress during my travels there. turning to the strategy announced by the president, i have five quick main issues for our distinguished panel. first, i'm concerned about the delays in the decision-making. the impact on our ability to succeed in disrupting, defeating, dismantling al qaeda and the taliban. general mcchrystal, you wrote on august 30th that the next 12 months from that date were critical. yet, one-quarter of that time has already gone. and by the time the surge is
expected to reach its full capacity, three-quarters of that time would have elapsed. operations such as the marine offensive operations, operations are being undertaken. is this illustrative of the counterinsurgency strategy that will be carried out as part of the surge? and how does this compare to the counterterrorism strategy? secondly, general mcchrystal, has the president provided you enough troops and other resources to successfully complete our mission? there have been reports that the mission's goals have changed from your original proposal, focusing on the elimination of the taliban, to instead insuring that insurgents could no longer threaten the afghan government's survival. also, are our rules of engagement pro bust enough to repel and permanently eliminate the taliban as a threat? and as the chairman asked, ambassador eickenberry do you
have have the necessary tools to carry out the civilian component of the strategy? 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 french, shoulder a greater burden. do you foresee difficulties in securing a greater commitment from our allies to contribute to the war effort? do the forces that the nato security general identified have the combat capabilities that you require? and what actions has the administration taken to convince countries to give you more flexibility in placing troops where they are most needed, rather than leaving them in safe zones? and fifth and finally, our afghanistan strategy does not exist in a vacuum. at last week's hearing i referred to statements by the chief prosecutor for the international criminal court, that he already has jurisdiction in afghanistan. that he's already conducting a preliminary examination into
whether nato troops, including our american soldiers, may have to be prosecuted by the icc. also, as you know, three navy s.e.a.l.s, part of a team that captured the ringleader of those responsible for the 2007 brutal murder of four of our american contractors in flallujah. the prosecution of c.i.a. operatives, the transfer of gitmo detainees for trials in the u.s., the negative impact of our activities in afghanistan could be dramatic and could undermine critical intelligence-gathering that could save, save the lives of americans serving there. despite these concerns, our nation's safety is at stake. and we must insure that the brave americans serving in afghanistan, as well as our critical allies are provided the
support that they need to win this war decisively. i thank you both gentlemen for appearing before us. thank you so much for the time, mr. chairman. >> ambassador carl icahnberry retired from the united states army with the rank of lieutenant general in april of 2009 and shortly thereafter was sworn in as the u.s. ambassador to afghanistan. prior to this assignment, general eikenberry served as the deputy chairman of the north atlantic treaty organization, military committee in brussel, belgium. he has served twice before in afghanistan, first as u.s. security coordinator and chief of the office of military cooperation in kabul. and then as commander of the combined forces command in afghanistan. general stanley mcchrystal is the current commander, international security
assistance force, and commander u.s. forces afghanistan. previously he served as director of the joint staff from the april 2008, to june 2009 and as commander, joint special operations command from 2003 to 2008. where he led the operation that resulted in the death of abu musab al-zarqawi, the leader of al qaeda in iraq. ambassador, general, we're honored to have you here. and ambassador, why don't you begin? >> thank you. chairman berman, ranking member lehtonen and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to present my views on afghanistan today. i'd ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. last week in a speech at the united states military academy at west point, president obama presented the administration's strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. his decision came after an intensive deliberative and a
far-reaching review. and i'm honored to have been part of that process. i believe that the course that the president outlined offers the best path to stabilize afghanistan and insure that al qaeda cannot regain a foothold to plan new attacks against us. i can say without equivocation, that i fully support this approach. i considered myself privileged to serve as united states ambassador, and to represent an amazing team of diplomats, development specialists and civilian experts who formed the most capable and dedicated united states embassy anywhere in the world today. i'm extraordinarily proud of them. i'm also honored to testify alongside general stan mcchrystal, my professional colleague and friends of many years. i want to say from the outset that general mcchrystal and myself are united in a joint effort where civilian and military personnel work together every day, side by side, with
our afghan partners and with our allies. and we could not accomplish our objectives without this kind of cooperation. as you know, mr. chairman, the united states is at a critical jupgt tur in ojuncture in our involvement in afghanistan. on december 1, the president ordered an additional 30,000 troops to deploy to afghanistan, with the goal of breaking the insurgency's momentum, hastening and improving the training of afghan security forces and establishing security in key parts of the country. on the civilian side, we aim to increase employment and provide essential services in areas of greatest insecurity. and to improve critical ministries and the economy at the national level. these steps, taken together, i believe, will help to remove insurgents from the battlefield and to build support for the afghan government. as the president said, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance.
after a difficult election, the afghan government does show signs of recognizing the need to deliver better governance and security. we await urgent, concrete steps in a numb of areas. i would like to briefly discuss the three main pillars of our efforts in afghanistan, which are security, governance and development. general mcchrystal will address our plans to improving security and building the afghan national security forces. since assuming my post, i've made a special point of getting outside of kabul to see conditions firsthand. and i fully concur with general mcchrystal's assessment that the security situation in afghanistan remains serious. sending additional united states and other nato isaf forces to afghanistan is critical to regaining the initiative. and i'm confident that as these troops arrive, the situation will stabilize and turn in our
favor. additional troops will also permit us to expand our work with the afghan army, and the afghan police. so that they can take a larger role in providing for security for their own people. as president obama said, the transition to afghan responsibility will begin in the summer of 2011, when we expect afghan security forces to begin assuming lead responsibility for defending their country. moving on from security. the second pillar of our comprehensive strategy focuses on governance. at the national, and at the subnational levels, our overarching goal is to encourage improved governance, so that afghans can see the benefit of supporting a legitimate government and the insurgency loses support. as general mcchrystal points out, one of the major impediments, our strategy faces, is the afghan government's lack of credibility with its own people. people.
fight corruption, organized crime and drug trafficking. in his inaugural address president karzai stated his intention to make merit-based apoiptments in his new cabinet and to implement an anti-corruption strategy and we're encouraged by his statements. the cultivation of poppy and trafficking in opium also continued to have a debilitating effect on afghan society. our strategy is multi-pronged and involves demand reduction, efforts by law enforcement agencies and the military to detain traffickers and interdict drug shipments and support for illicit agricultural development. the narcotics problem, of course, will never have a solution, though, without economic development and this leads to the third pillar of our effort which is development. in recent months, we've adjusted our approach to focusing on building key elements of the afghan private sector economy, increasing our emphasis on
agriculture, enhancing government revenue collection, and improving the coordination assistance within the united states government and the international community. these steps were taken to produce improvements in the lives of ordinary afghans and to contribute directly to more effective government and lessened support for the insurgency. rebuilding the farm sector, in particular, is essential for the afghan government to reduce the pool of unemployed men who form the recuting base for extremist groups. we estimate that some 80% of the afghan population derives their income either directly or indirectly from agriculture. mr. chairman, i want to emphasize that we're concentrating on what is essential and what is attainable. the president's strategy is based on a pragmatic assessment of the security interests of the united states and our belief that a sustainable, representative government and a
sustainable economy are essential to success. we need a viable afghan government so our forces can draw down and investment of u.s. taxpayer dollars can be reduced. in closing, i need to mention two important risks that we do face in carrying out this strategy. the first is that, in spite of everything that we do, afghanistan may struggle to take over the essential task of governance and security on a timely basis. the second is our partnership with pakistan. the efforts were under -- we're under taking in afghanistan is likely to fall short of our strategic goals unless there's more progress at eliminating the sanctuaries used by the afghan taliban and their associates in pakistan. if the main elements of the president's plan are executed and if our afghan partnerss and our allies do their part, i'm confident that we can achieve our strategic objectives. i say this with conviction, because for the first time in my
three tours in afghanistan, all of the elements of our national power are being employed with full support of the president and increasingly of our allies. achieving our goals for afghanistan will not be easy. but i'm optimistic that we can succeed with the support of the united states congress. our mission has been under-resourced for years but now one of our government's highest priorities with substantial development funds and hundreds more civilian personnel. we will soon have increased our civilian presence in kabul three-fold and in the field six-fold, just over this past year and we will, of course, though, need more. u.s. foreign assistance is, also, a comparatively small but essential fraction of the total amount that's being spent in afghanistan and has been spent over the last eight years. additional resources will be necessary and we look forward to sharing more details on our anticipated needs with congress in the coming days and weeks.
mr. chairman, afghanistan is a daunting challenge. success is not guaranteed, but it is possible. with the additional troops and other resources provided by the president and with the help of congress, we will work tirelessly to ensure that al qaeda never again regains -- gains ref few in afghanistan and threatens our country. thank you, sir. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. general mcchrystal? >> mr. chairman, ranking member -- distinguished members of this committee thank you for the chance to appear before you today. i welcome this opportunity to testify on our way ahead in afghanistan and i'm pleased to do so with ambassador karl eikenberry, an old friend. let me begin by saluting the bravery of the men and women of the international security assistance force in afghanistan an cored by over 68,000 courageous americans our close partners in the nato alines and
a 43-nation coalition. we honor the sacrifices of the fallen, the veterans, and their families. we also recognize the toll paid every day by our counterparts in the afghan security forces and by afghan civilians, who ultimately suffer the most from this insurgency. it is for them and for all of us that we seek a stable afghanistan, a defunct al qaeda and a secure future in that vital region of the world. i first deployed to afghanistan in 2002 and have commanded forces there every year since. despite that experience, there's much in afghanistan that i have yet to fully understand. for all of us, afghanistan is a challenge that is best approached with a balance of determination and humility. while u.s. forces have been at war in afghanistan for eight years, the afghans have been at it for more than 30. they are frustrated with international efforts that have failed to meet their expectations, confronting us with a crisis of confidence
among afghans who view the international effort as insufficient and their government as corrupt or, at the very least, inconsequential. we also face a complex and resilient insurgency. the -- taliban, or afghan taliban, is the prominent threat to the government of afghanistan. and they aspire to, once again, become the government of afghanistan. the hakani and -- insurgent groups have more limited geographic reach and objectives but are no leslie that. all three groups are supported, to some degree by external elements in iran and pakistan, have ties with al qaeda, and co-exist within narcotics and criminal networks both fueling and feeding off instability and insecurity in the region. the mission in afghanistan is undeniably difficult and success will require steadfast commitment and enoccur significant costs. i participated fully in the
president's assessment and decision-making process and was afforded multiple opportunities to provide my recommendations and best military advice, which i did. combined with insights and policy considerations from across our government, i believe the decisions that came from that process reflect a realistic and effective approach. to pursue our core goal of defeating al qaeda and preventing their return to afghanistan, we must disrupt and degrade the taliban's capacity, deny their access to the afghan population, and strengthen the afghan security forces. this means we must reverse the taliban's current momentum and create the time and space to develop afghan security and governance capacity. the president's decision rapidly resources our strategy, recognizing that the next 18 months will likely be decisive and ultimately enable success. i fully support the president's decision. the president has also
reiterated how this decision supports our national interests, rolling back the taliban is a prerequisite to the ultimate defeat of al qaeda. the mission is is not only important, it is, also, achievable. we can and will accomplish this mission. let me briefly explain why i believe so. my confidence derives first from the afghans' resolve since it is their actions that will ultimately matter most in ending this conflict. with their interests and by extension our own secured. second, we do not confront a popular insurgency. the taliban have no widespread constituency, have a history of failure in power, and lack an appealing vision. third, where our strategy is applied we've begun to show we can help the afghans establish more effective security and more credible governance. . finally, afghans do not regard us aus occupiers. they do not wish for us to remain forever yet they see our support as a necessary bridge to
future security and stability. i've been back in afghanistan for six months now. i believe that with the president's decision and ongoing reforms i outlined in our initial assessment, our efforts are now empowered with a greater sense of clarity, capability, commitment, and confidence. let me start with "clarity." the president's recently completed review of our strategy to include its deep and pointed questioning of all assumptions and recommendations has produced greater clarity of our mission and objectives. we also have greater clarity on the way forward. additional forces will begin to deploy shortly and, by this time next year, new security gains will be illuminated by specific indicators and it will be clear to us that the insurgency has lost the momentum. and by the summer of 2011, it will be clear to the afghan people that the insurgency will not win, giving them the chance to side with their government. from that point forward while we begin to reduce
we will remain partner with the afghan security forces in a supporting roll to consolidate and solidify their gains. results may come more quickly and we must demonstrate progress towards measurable objectives but the sober fact is that there are no silver bullets. ul malt success will be the cumulative effect of sustained pressure across multiple lines of operation. increasing our capability has been about much more than just troop increases. for the past six months we have implementing organizational and operational changes that are already reflecting improvements in our effectiveness. but the additional forces announced by president obama are a -- are significant. forces to increase our capacity to train the afghan national security forces and forces to partner with afghan army and police in expanding security zones in key areas will provide us the ability to reverse insurgent momentum and deny the taliban the access to the population they require to
survive. our commitment is watched intently and constantly judged by our allies and by our enemies. the commitment of 30,000 additional u.s. forces, along with additional coalition forces and growing afghan national security force numbers, will be a significant step toward expanding security in critical areas and in demonstrating resolve. the commitment of all coalition nations will be buttressed by a clear understanding of how we will mitigate risks. i'll briefly mention three. the first is the afghan government's credibility deficit which must be recognized by all to include afghan officials as a critical area of focus and change. equally important is our ability to accelerate development of the afghan security forces. measures such as increased pay and incentives, literacy training, leader development, and expanded partnering are necessary for position the afghan national security force to assume responsibilities for long-term security.
third, the hazard posed by extremists that operate on both sides of the border with pakistan with freedom of movement across that border must be mitigated by enhanced cross-border coordination and enns haensed pakistani engagements. looking ahead, i'm confident we have both the right strategy and the right resources. every trip around afghanistan reinforces my confidence in the coalition and afghan forces we stand alongside in this effort. but i also find confidence in those we are trying to help. that confidence is found where an afghan farmer chooses to harvest wheat rather than poppy or where a young adult casts his or her vote or joins the police. or where a group of villagers resolves to reject the local insurgency. we face many challenges in afghanistan but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality. neither the afghan people nor the international community want afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and
violence. and if we are to be confident of our mission and our prospects, we must also be accurate in our assessments of progress. we owe ourselves, our leaders, and the american people transparency and candor because the price to be paid is high and the stakes are even higher. in closing, my team and i would like to thank you and your colleagues for your support to the american men and women currently serving in afghanistan and to tell you a bit about them. we risk letting numbers like 30 k roll off our tongues without remembering that those are fathers, mothers, sons and daughters serving far from home, selfless in their sacrifices for each of us. the other day i asked a young but combat-experienced sergeant where he was on 9/11 and his answer, getting my braces removed reminded me it's been more than eight years since 9/11. many of our service members and families have experienced and sacrificed much. but, as i see them in action at
commander of the international security assistance force, as well as u.s. forces. would you be willing to introduce a few of our nato representatives who are here with us today? >> yes, sir. this is part of my personal staff, of course i've got colonel charlie flynn, who's a u.s. army officer, cristof my german aide. i have two aids, one american, one german. bill raferty is a planner a british officer, another allied officer from the u.s. navy greg smith runs our communications jake mcfaren is our political adviser in the headquarters, casey welsh is my other aide, american aide. hi 27 months in iraq before he came to afghanistan with only five months off between those two deployments and then dave silverman works in my personal staff obviously another naval officer. >> great. thank you very much. we'll begin our questioning now
and i'm first going to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for continuing the hearing and i want to thank both ambassador eikenberry and general mcchrystal for what you do and your leadership you're doing for our young men and women not only serving in the in military but obviously in the civilian side, having been the embassy in afghanistan a couple times and been hosted there, it's not the plush area anyone ever thinks but i appreciate what y'all do and i know members of congress do. general mcchrystal there, are currently 94,000 afghan soldiers on the ground and current plans call for increasing the number to 134 by october of next year. there are currently bottom 91,000 afghan police officers on the ground and currently calling for boosting to 966,800 by next october make a total of the afghan security force around
230,000, police and military. during this strategic overview -- or review, you advocating for boosting the number of afghan security forces to 400,000. security forces in iraq, with a much easier terrain now total about 600,000. do we think 400,000 with tougher terrain in afghanistan is really -- it's a lot more than 230, the estimate. but, it still -- is it still within range of what we really need for the afghans? >> congressman, as you -- as everyone knows, afghanistan must ultimately secured by afghans. that's what they want and that is the right answer. we did a detailed analysis of what it would take using basic coin doctrine to secure afghanistan and the number reaches up near 600,000 total, afghan -- or security forces of all kinds, police and army. but, the insurgency is not in the entire country, not all the country's threatened so, as we refined our focus, in fact, we
were able to -- to reach what we believe is a better, longer term in-state. we came up with about 400,000 a combination of army and police as being the right number for afghanistan to have as a coalition forces drop down to a fairly small number of advisers, or for the long term. that would, of course, be adjusted or could be adjusted based upon whether there's an insurgency at that point and the size of that insurgency. a number of 400,000 divided between the army and the police of 240,000 ultimately in the army and 160,000 in the police would not be really out of range for that part of the world for standing armies and police. but, i think we need to view that not as a hard number at this point but as a goal we work toward and adjust constantly. the president's decision is to grow those forces, like we're growing the army to 134,000 by next fall, and we'll clearly
continue to grow the police but to re-look that every year will allow us to reflect what the state of the insurgency is and then, of course, what their ability to grow is, can they make those numbers? we're getting some very heartening feedback here recently there have been pay raises for both the army and the police implemented by the government of afghanistan, with our -- the international community's help and we're seeing a significant improvement. but, we've got to see whether that's sustainable long term. >> okay. and you recognize that our goal is to make it the afghans protecting their own neighborhood and that's -- you share that and the president i know shares it and i know congress does. general mcchrystal in your testify you write additional forces will debin to deploy shortly and by this time next year new security games will be illuminated by specific indicators. it would be clear to us that the insurgency has lost momentum. other than generally saying conditions on the ground, knowing that security situation would never be perfect, what specific criteria can the american people look to that
we're basing that decision on -- that decision on sometime next year? >> sir, we collect a tremendous number of metrics but try to pull those together into a number that is understandable both to us and then communicatable. the first and biggest will be the security situation by district across the country. within the 34 provinces. whether the district is, in fact, under solid government control, whether it might be contested, or whether it might be under insurgent control. so, we do a map that is fed by a tremendous amount of data that allows us to look at those districts. fe we are seeing progress in those, that will be one of a major indicators. i believe that the other major indicator will be the growth and development of the afghan security forces or increasing capacity of afghanistan to secure itself. in addition to those two major indicators that i believe will be most illustrative we feed
that with a tremendous amount of information from polling data of what the afghan people think which is key because ultimately this war will be won in the minds of the afghan people and indicators of their ability to go about their lives whether they can drive through secure areas to market, the cost of goods and things like that. >> okay. again, thank you. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from arkansas mr. boozman and the five minutes allotted includes questions and answers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate you being here ambassador eikenberry and general mcchrystal and we do appreciate the service to your country and then, also, your families and i think that was so illustrated by your staffer when you mentioned, you know, that he was in iraq and now in afghanistan and the time away from home. general mcchrystal following the president's march speech to congress, the president developed a series of metrics to judge progress in afghanistan and pakistan. are those metrics still useful?
did they have any influence on the strategy and assessment that you did in august? are these metrics still useful based on the president's new strategy? 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 reportedly given president karzai a list of milestones and metrics that he will judge him by. have you seen the list? do you -- does it have -- are we trying to replicate and work with them in that regard? >> congressman, i have not seen the specific list but i'm roughly familiar with the intent of it. >> good. lastly, the other guys were here and testified, secretary gates and then, also, admiral mullen.
and i think that i know in my district, i think throughout the country, there really is a great concern of the four guys that are under indictment or whatever you call that in the military. and i think the concern is, is that somehow we're being caught up in political correctness. i wanted to tell secretary gates i didn't get a chance to ask a question of him but arkansas played texas a&m, you know, earlier in the year and beat them in texas stadium. but, you know, in the heat of that battle, you know, if somebody hit somebody in the mouth, they'd be suspended for a game. and i know it's different, you know, the situation, but it's not that different. and i guess what i would like from you is just your reassurance. i know through the years, you know, people have stood up for me. your reassurance that you are looking into that, you know, and
shepherding that process. i know you can't get involved directly at the point it is now. admiral mullen indicated that he had confidence with the people that, you know, were taking care of it. and again, my comeback to that is that i know he had confidence in the people at ft. hood yet a third grader could have told there was something going on there that was not right and i think, again, the american people are concerned that that is due to political correctness. >> congressman, i am not familiar, because the incident that happened in iraq with the current one that you mentioned -- with the specifics of that case. but, i will tell you we stress to our -- all of our people the importance of how they act but there's also an absolute loyalty to people, as well so i think the balance is about right. i feel very good, particularly we've learned a lot over these years as we go through this. >> and i know that is -- you know, is an iraqi situation but
it does make a difference in the sense your guys now, when they're, you know, deciding whether or not to do an action or this or that, the easiest thing to do is to not do it, okay. it does make a difference, as far as decision making and things. and so, i would hope that you would work with your cohorts. i know that you've got tremendous influence in various areas but that really is an important thing. it's an important thing with the american people and their support of the military. thank you, mr. chairman. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome general and ambassador. let me start off with the mission as it was articulated by general gates and secretary clinton and last week was this. that our mission is is to go in, destroy, dismantle, defeat al qaeda in both afghanistan and pakistan and see to it that they do not return. that being the case, what about
pakistan? pakistan is where the crux of the problem is. but yet, it is the least emphasis where we've seen our strategy. that's where al qaeda is. that's where the real apex of this situation is is. will our troops be able to go into pakistan and do exactly what the mission says, destroy, dismantle and see that doesn't return to pakistan? >> sir, the importance of the mission against al qaeda is absolutely clear. as commander of isaf, my responsibility or my authorities stop at the border of afghanistan and pakistan. we do, however, work very is hard and i personally spend a lot of time with general kiani developing a strategic partnership to enable them to meet their strategic objectives. >> let me just ask you because i only have just a few minutes and i have a number of questions. to your knowledge, of your
involvement with the joint strategy with pakistan, to your knowledge, will our troops be able to go into pakistan? >> sir, i'm -- i'm really out of my lane to discuss that. >> okay. let me ask you about nato and our troops. nato has said they are sending around 7,000, 6,000, 7,000 troops. those troops come with caveats. can you comment here briefly on what that presents to you, where a nation may send soldiers but tell them you can go, you can see, but you can't conquer, you can't get in the battle, you must sit on the bench, what does that do to our strategy? >> sir, many of the 43 nation forces come with no caveats and they operate just like ours. >> one sentence of that. >> sir. >> you said 40%. >> no, sir. i don't know the percentage. i'd like to get that back to you for the record. the caveats are something i work
with all our nato partners and ask them to reduce to increase our flexibility and i think it's important we continue to reduce those so they can prosecute zzzzzzzzzzzzz%zzzzzz providing for the security of its own people. >> let me just ask you, though, because i only have a little bit of time. are we in nation building in
afghanistan? >> i think that what we've established are clearer goals that are narrow that have to do with establishing sufficient security -- >> but i'm asking you, yes or no, are we in nation building in afghanistan. >> no, i would not characterize what we are doing. we are providing assistance to the state of a of a fwan stan. no, i would not characterize it as open-ended nation building, clearly not. >> all right. let me go back to you, general mcchrystal. you mentioned and you spoke eloquently and i agree with you the sacrifice and the great job that our soldiers are doing. but, here's what concerns me. there's a terrible strain on our military. many of our young men and women are going on their third and fourth tours of duty. there's been an ugly side to this. every time i've gone over there for four times i've been to afghanistan, i go back to lanstall air base, i care about our military. the situation in ft. hood was just the tip of the iceberg in
terms of the stress, the mental strain, the suicide, the divorce rates. tell me how deep is the strain on our military, and what are we doing about it? >> congressman, the strain is significant but the force is holding up extraordinarily well. i think the things we are doing to take care of families back in the states, the things we are doing to look after service members while they're there to get leave, to all those things to take care of wounded warriors, to me all of those come together to give the force much more resiliency than it would otherwise have and historically would have. >> time the gentleman has expired. >> thank you both. >> the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, is recognized for five minutes. >> general, ambassador, thank you very much for being here today. i have a special appreciation of your commitment as a member of congress i'm grateful to be the co-chair of the afghan caucus, i appreciate your hospitality, the
briefings that i've had with both of you. i just have great faith in your service. also, i'm very happy that we share that our army careers began together in the 1970s and so i appreciate, as a veteran, your service but more particularly, as a parent i've got four sons serving in the military of the united states today. i'm very grateful for their service and military service means a lot to our family. and that's why i want military families to know that i have faith in your integrity, i have faith in your ability. you truly are looking out for the troops as i believe you're going to be victorious in this second surge, where we will be defeating the terrorists to protect american families at home. on tuesday, i was honored to be at the armed services committee meeting ambassador and was pleasantly surprised when you said that there has been progress in afghanistan and sometimes i have to read about
progress in unusual places, like rotrary magazine and they were giving indications of rotrary projects around the world and one they are backing up are schools, the number of schools have increased from 650 to 9,a 500. can you tell us what you see as progress and then what is the role of a provincial reconstruction team? >> thanks, congressman. there's been remarkable progress since the very dark days of taliban of 2001. you mentioned one, education. in 2001, there was one million children going to school. they were almost all boys. they were receiving a certain persuasion of education. today, there are 6.5 million afghan children who are going to school. about 35% of those are girls. in 2001, very little of the afghan population had access to any health care. now, 80% of the population has access to primary,
albeit rudimentary but access to health care. i could go on with the development of roads, i could go on with now 10 mill afghans have cell phone -- have cell phones and there's been profound changes. against that, we know where the challenges are. general mcchrystal and i both share our views of where those challenges are. but, there is room to -- there is room to have great hope, as we move forward. there is much to build upon. the provincial reconstruction teams, the provincial reconstruction teams have a very important role both as civilian military combined effort in many of the provinces of afghanistan under nato isaf command and their roles are to assist the local government in strengthening their government to help them develop capacity in order to improve their distribution of basic services to the people in the area. >> and something to be very helpful i served with congresswoman sheila jackson lee in the afghan caucus.
if you could provide to us, say a bullet type of presentation that we could distribute to our colleagues on items of progress that you see, that would be very helpful. and general mcchrystal, i have had the opportunity to visit the police training academy in jalalabad, my former national guard unit the 218th helped train the police units across the country and i saw really dedicate persons but i'm very concerned about their pay. the pay is so low that it certainly would call into question loyalty and then lead to some level of bribery. what's the status of pay, training, who is paying? >> congressman, well timed. we just, the government of afghanistan just increased the pay of afghan national army and police. didn't quite double it, but brought it almost to twice. it's still -- the design is to get to a living reasonable wage
so we don't have people who are forced to resort to corruption or family support to go forward. and it's paid -- it's foreign money that helps. the afghan government is required to pay 34% of their budget according to the london compact 1996 towards their afghan security forces, but that clearly does not -- does not cover the major part of the costs. >> and the costs largely are covered, you say, by foreign contributions. it's my understanding that japan has been a major contributor and should be given credit. again, people do not know the extraordinary efforts and support from around the world, as unlikely as japan supporting the police of afghanistan. thank you, again, for your service. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from arkansas mr. ross, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
general mcchrystal, the arkansas national guard, like those in other states, plays an important role in responding to natural disasters and other domestic emergencies in arkansas. it's not uncommon for them to respond in other states, as well such as louisiana after hurricane katrina. in addition to these domestic roles, the arkansas national guard's 39th infrant ree brigade combat team has twice been deployed to iraq and while this team has to date not served in afghanistan, there is a significant national guard presence in afghanistan. in fact, the 39th's been to iraq not once but twice. i think most of them have a pretty good idea of what may be in their future. i'm grateful for the service the men and women of the national guard provide our country. their continued deployment leaves the national guard fewer
troops and equipment needed to respond to domestic issues. how many of the 30,000 additional troops do you envision coming from the national guard, and how soon will national guardsmen and guardswomen return after the planned drawdown begins in 2011. >> sir i'll have to take the number of the 30,000 and get back to you that look like national guards. the services will determine that. i would like to take a second, though, to talk about national guardsmen in service because they were extraordinary across all of the different discipline, engineers, infantry, trainers, a significant number of people training the afghan national security is forces are national guardsmen then the agricultural development teams that are there, as well, from many states, they provide a linkage to practical agriculture, expertise that we can provide and they also develop a sense of partnership with the afghan
people that is a combat multiplier not just developmental assistance it actually helps security, as well. so, i can't say enough about what national guardsmen do or the sacrifices they've made. >> in my time remaining, approximately three-quarters of the food, fuel and other provisions that supply nato forces passes through pakistan. in the face of increased taliban attacks on the supply routes, the pakistani government has been unable to increase security. since september 2008, the attacks have forced several temporary closures of nato supply routes through the kybur pass. as a result of these attacks and the decreased security in pakistan, nato was forced to seek alternative supply routes into afghanistan. the continuing attacks raise
concern for the deployment of additional u.s. troops to afghanistan, which will require a significant increase in supplies. while some of the additional supplies will be transported via other ways such as the northern distribution network, much of the additional supplies will have to pass, obviously, through pakistan. what will be done to ensure american and nato forces receive the supplies necessary during their deployment in light of this? >> congressman, that's a -- that's an important point we look at very hard. what we call the ground lines of communication that go through pakistan are essential to our effectiveness there and so we work with is our strategic partnership with the government of pakistan to continue to secure those. we actually have a very good track record of amount of equipment that makes it through without any issues. it's a very, very high percentage. it's been -- it's been a very strong, predictable flow. that said we always understand instability could threaten that
that's why the northern distribution network was dofld, not because we absolutely had to have it but we wanted to have alternate means so that if one means was threatened or one line of communication was threatened, we would have the additional. >> and mr. chairman, my goal in life remains keeping you happy and with that i'll yield back my remaining 40 seconds. >> wow! lauftz. >> i hope it's contagious. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. english, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and general, you lead an awesome group of folks and we thank you for your service and for their service. you mentioned that our commitment as a nation is being watched intently and you called it a significant step to commit 30,000 troops. is is it sufficient? >> koong gresman, i am confident that it is. >> and if, in the commitment
being watched intently, what do we signal by a timeline for transfer? is that -- does that undermine the signal of commitment, or does it -- what's the impact of talking about a date certain for transfer? >> there are several points i'd like to make on that. there is first a vulnerability in any date that's set. the enemy can take that date and use it for propaganda purposes. but, i believe we can combat that. but, there are a number of positives in where we are right now and i'd like to stress those. the first is that the date does serve as somewhat of a forcing function for the government of afghanistan and the afghan people to understand that their responsibility for security is absolute and we need to move toward that and i think we've already begun to see some of the effect on that, so that's positive. but, i'd also step back and talk about the more important part, to me, at the security
standpoint. the president has outlined his commitment to a strategic partnership over time, long term, which provides assurance to the people of afghanistan and the government that we are partnering with them. were i an insurgent and i saw that solid assurance from the united states, then i would understand that a date doesn't change anything. in the near term, the 30,000 additional american forces combined with coalition forces is going to allow my force to turn this momentum and very seriously push back on the insurgency and i think very effectively and i think that will be clear to everyone. at the same time, the growth of afghan national security forces will be rising during that period so that at any point whatever pace the president decides to draw down our combat forces i think that's met with growing afghan national security force and government capacity. so, i really think we don't leave much of a window of opportunity for the insurgency, particularly when they see the
government of afghanistan presence and high poppy yields. we see that very clearly in southern afghanistan. in one province of southern afghanistan, helmand, over 50% of poppy production for the entire country occurs there. that's exactly the area where general mcchrystal's forces right now and the afghan national security forces have part of their main effort. part of of that success that we'll have there will have to do with pushing the taliban back and securing the afghan population. part of the success will, also, yield reductions in poppy production and narco trafficking and there is a clear nexus between the two. >> yeah, it seems to be a clear nexus between the security -- the imsition, our ability to project force so that we stop that poppy production because, otherwise, the unpopular, as the general said, the unpopular taliban becomes more popular by comparison if you can feed your
family selling an illegal crop as opposed to slaving away on a low-profit-margin crop that maybe isn't going to feed your family. so, it's crucial, i suppose, to have these things go together, that we have to push to say that, you know, you can't grow this anymore but, also, provide some hope that other crops will work and you can make a living. >> one of our key -- one of the key first principles of our developmental strategy is in the area of agriculture and i think congressman, it gets exactly at what you're talking about. >> yeah. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new york mr. crowley is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman and both you gentlemen for being here before us today. like many of my colleagues i have some very serious reservations about additional troop build-up in afghanistan. especially in the midst of a tough economic cycle we're under right now here. our first and foremost
responsibilities i believe is to the american people. in addition to the cost the geopolitical realities of afghanistan and pakistan the greater region all raise questions about the u.s. efforts in afghanistan. i'm also concerned about the well-being, certainly of our troops. i had the opportunity it travel to both afghanistan and to iraq last year. probably the sharpest distinction that i could draw after coming back was that the different assets that appear upon landing in afghanistan and i want to thank i don't know if it has been done already i noticed behind you, general, representation of the coalition forces that are engaged in afghanistan and i want to thank them for their participation and for the sacrifices they've made, as well. i know it's not just an american cause. but, having said that, we will be sending many, many more american troops than coalition forces from abroad. with that in mind, i just want to ask and just to follow up on
the last questions that were brought up to both general mcchrystal and you to, ambassador, in terms of your initial report to secretary gates, you said that the narco profits were a major earner for the insurgency. if we were to displace that as a profit mode for the rebels and for al qaeda, do you believe there are other alternative resources that they would be able to use to supplant that? and would they be enough to -- to carry out the work they're doing right now? >> congressman, we calculate that the taliban get about a third of their funding from the narco trafficking but that they could operate without it. they essentially tax the narco trade. they could tax licit crops, as well. we don't think that would cripple them. the greatest threat from that trade is the corrosive
corruption it brings into governance. what we need to do first is get security and bring all of those down together. >> i thought it wows important to make that point and i appreciate you doing that that init, will not end the problems we have. yes, ambassador. >> briefly, congressman, another source of revenue, of course from the taliban comes from outside of afghanistan, funds that come from the gulf, funds that come from different elements in pakistan and there is a full-out combined intelligence, military and law enforcement effort to try to choke that off. >> thank you. just i have limited time so i just want to get to another point they testimonies by numerous government witnesses pointed out the u.s. is going to increase the number of trainers working to expand the afghan army. over time if the plan works, the size of the afghan army will grow substantially. going forward, how will the afghan army sustain itself financially, financially and does your plan include a measure of self-sustainability so that american taxpayers are not footing the entire bill for
decades to come? >> sir, in the near term it's clear that afghanistan will not have the funds to pay for security forces of the size that they need. as their economy grows, that would be the hope but in the foe seeable future. that does not appear possible. >> the -- also, congressman, important to note that when we talk about the afghan national security forces, the army and the police, i don't think we can tell you precisely what's the ratio of cost of having a u.s. army soldier or marine deployed to afghanistan versus the cost of sustaining an afghan national army soldier or policeman but it's probably on the order of 30 or 40 to one. so, obviously, the way forward of developing afghan national army and police that can provide for the security of their own people, it makes good sense for a lot of reasons. >> i appreciate it. looking at my clock i have less than a minute so, mr. chairman,
your work has been incredibly important in terms of the level of witnesses we've had before this committee and i, too want to stay in your good graces and will yield back the balance of my time. >> well, that's nice. thank you. the time of the gentleman has been relinquished. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here. i am from southeast texas. i represent a guy by the name of charlie wilson's old district. and so, i have a few questions, i just got back from afghanistan on tuesday and met with our generals, german, canadian and british nato allies and our troops down on the pakistan/afghanistan border. i was pleasantly really sprilsed to learn that the afghan people appear, to me, to be very
supportive of our presence in afghanistan. that they fear the taliban, they fear the reprisals that they have lived under under the taliban and they supply us a lot of information about the taliban, good intelligence. the question -- several questions -- we've heard about the president's position on more troops. i call it the surge and retreat policy. but now, that has been hedged a little bit in the summer of 2011. general mcchrystal, what is our policy now? is it to re-evaluate our troops, our position in 2011, the summer of 2011, is that what it is, as you understand it? >> congressman, my understanding is is in july of 2011, we will begin the reduction of u.s. forces. the pace of that and the scope of that will be based on
conditions on the ground at that time. >> so, we will start bringing troops home but we won't necessarily bring them all home then, is that what you understand? >> exactly, congressman, there will be some slope, some pace that is determined by conditions. >> and if the conditions are worse, what happens then? >> sir, the president can always make decisions based upon conditions on the ground but it is my expectation that, on -- beginning july 2011, we'll start a reduction. >> you can -- you believe that you can accomplish the mission you have when you receive the troops, which is in several weeks or even months maybe just a year, year time that you have to do that? >> congressman, i do. >> all right. >> i think that with the forces we have the additional forces in that time i'm comfortable that we'll be able to do that. >> well, i think it's obvious to anybody that goes to afghanistan and iraq to our troops are just
the best. there's no comparison to the quality of our troops. how many members of the taliban are there? i think it's -- we'd like to know how many of the enemy we're trying to defeat. how many of them are there, general? >> congressman, it varies, based upon their popularity. we assess between 24 and 27,000 members of the taliban. but, i believe, as momentum has turned, that affects their ability to retain their force. so, i think it -- it's not people with long-term enlistments. i think it's more flexible than that. >> i haven't been on the pakistan/afghanistan border and talking to just regular troops, just my opinion is that the pakistan government isn't doing enough to ratchet up protecting their side of the border. that the taliban come over into afghanistan if, woe be to them -- i mean come over into afghanistan and woe be to them
if they do because the military is going to find them. but, they run back over to pakistan and have sanctuary and that appears to me we know where they are, pakistan gives lip service to doing something about it. met with their people and i'm not convinced that pakistan is engaged in helping defeat the taliban. can you give me some insight on -- on that? >> sir, i believe our long-term way ahead is with a strategic partnership with pakistan. they are absolutely focused against the ttp, or pakistani taliban internal to pakistan. they have not focused on the afghan taliban that use sanctuaries. interestingly and i have a very close relationship with the pakistani military and building this relationship -- >> excuse me, general for interrupting. >> yes, sir. >> i just have 30 seconds. they take care of business -- but people running back and
forth into afghanistan, they don't consider that their problem. >> conditioning gresman, that may overcism fi it but i wish they would do. >> i'm sorry, ambassador, we can't go into it but i, too am concerned about the rules of engagement oop the navy s.e.a.l.s capturing one of the worst guys in history and it seems they ought to be getting medals rather than being court-martialed but we don't have any time to talk about that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellis, is recognized for five minutes. >> let me welcome you and say good morning to both you, ambassador and general, it is good to see you again. were we with you only a few weeks ago. we've talked a lot about 307,000 extra but what about the civilian surge side of this? you could elaborate that on -- that, ambassador, eikenberry? what is our projected number,
what are we hoping to arrive at and how is that process going on? >> thanks, congressman. good to see you again. >> absolutely. >> we've made very significant progress over the last 12 months in increasing our civilian numbers and our civilian capabilities in afghanistan. by january of next year, here in about -- here in about a seven-week time frame if you look back over the last month, we will have had a three-fold increase o our civilian presence in afghanistan, very importantly, in support of general mcchrystal's efforts, a six-fold increase in the field. numbers roughly then that we're talking about, early next year, january/february time frame we'll be looking at about 1,000 civilians overall in afghanistan, about 400 of those we project to be out in the field. it's a very deverse group of civilians. these are civilians not only from the department of state, as you know, but usaid, development
specialists, department of agriculture specialists around the country, members of the federal bureau of investigation mentoring and helping establish an afghan fbi. we have brave members of the drug enforcement administration, members of the federal aviation administration, a really impressive array. we've had innovations over the course of the past six months in which the way that we organize our civilian efforts and multiply the effects of wherever they are through hiring afghans and then, through those afghan organizations, amplifying the effects. we have very close collaboration with general mcchrystal in the integration of these efforts. projecting ahead, congressman, we are set to build to 1,000. right now, we're in discussions with the -- with the department about what additional capabilities and numbers will we need on the ground. that's also in collaboration
with general mcchrystal, understanding his campaign so we can support that. i don't have an exact number for what we'll grow to, but it might be on the order of needing several hundred more over the course of the next six to nine months beyond what we've projected currently. >> well, i guess my question is, i mean, that is very impressive. and i thank you for that. the movement, education, girls's education. there are a lot of good stories to tell, is and i thank both of you for that. but as i look at what we're trying to arrive at at a civilian number and a military number is like 100 to one. is that the right ratio? shouldn't we have a greater -- if we're trying to help stabilize the country, harden the country so it's more impervious to these forces that would overthrow the government and hurt the country, shouldn't the proportion be a lot greater when it comes to civilian representation? >> representative, numbers are important at one level, but you have to look at the effects that
they are going to be achieving. when we talk about the military, we talk about mobilizing platoons, companies, battalions of 600 to achieve effects. remember when we're talking about civilians, we're talking individuals. three good department of agriculture specialists working in a ministry of agriculture of afghanistan can help transform that ministry and its delivery of services of agricultural services throughout the country. so, yes, numbers matter, but at the end of the day it's how do you organize them and what effects are you trying to achieve. if you wish, for the record, i can give many more examples. >> and i would like that. but i've got one more question for you. you know, when i was in afghanistan, and only a few weeks ago, our mission is part of the house democratic partnership commission, was to interact with our counterparts, other legislators there. and i was really impressed with
many people i met, including several women ledge slaftors. one was from hell man province. she reported that without the intervention of the u.s. marines, she probably couldn't even be a member of the parliament. and i guess my question to you is, you know, how is security related to women's rights in afghanistan, in your view? >> security is a very critical dimension of the advancement of women's rights in afghanistan. certainly there's many other factors. but security is fundamental. >> the time the gentleman has has expired. the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, chairman. during the last three months, the personal prosecutor for the international criminal court has been making public statements that he has jurisdiction over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in afghanistan
and, quote, perimeter investigation into operations by u.s. and other nato forces. this could lead to icc prosecutions of american soldiers even though the united states has never ratified their own statute. among other things, he's declined to rule out icc prosecutions based upon unmanned u.s. drone strikes against leaders there in afghanistan. however, this administration has been moving the united states closer to the international criminal court. the secretary of state has expressed great regret we're not a signatory to the statute. last month, for the first time since the statute entered into force, the administration september a delegation to participate in a meeting of the icc seam my of parties. it's my understanding that the u.s. ambassador at large for war
crimes was at the meeting, said nothing to protest or dispute the icc's pros cue toral jurisdictional claims. we understand that there is an article 98 agreement with afghanistan that exempts afghanistan to their own agreement from turning our troops over to the international criminal court. however, the soldiers, if they're in member states such as japan, germany, and even the uk, may be subject to jurisdiction. i'd like your opinions on whether you agree or disagree with the icc's pros cue toral claim, to prosecute u.s. and nato troops over actions taken in afghanistan. >> gongman, let me speak for a minute from a united states perspective. we do have a bilateral
agreement, article 98, as we do with certain other states party to the icc. and this precludes the afghan government from surrendering troops to the icc. the important bottom line is our troops are protected from being turned over to the icc. >> while they're in afghanistan. what if they're in other countries that are not signatories to an article 98 agreement but the countries themselves are signatories to their own agreement. >> let me get back for the record on that important question. congressman, i know it's a complicated legal issue. >> general, do you have an opinion on that? i think we need a definitive answer because young men and women are being asked to go overseas to afghanistan to engage in combat. they need to know whether or not they could be arrested in countries that are signatories to the rome agreement. >> congressman, i absolutely
agree we need clarity. i would like to, along with the ambassador, take this for the record to ensure we get you the accurate answer. >> well, i -- i'd hope we would have it today. we're concerned about the prosecution of the three navy s.e.a.l.s. a lot of people contacted us. they don't think the military is standing behind the young men and women in uniform. they don't think because some terrorist got punched out they should be subjected to a court-martial taking place in this country. i would like the assurance of both of you that if there's no clarity on this we will have clarity, especially in light of the fact that the secretary of state is expressing regret that we're not a party to the rome agreement. ambassador, both of you, are you on record as saying that you're absolutely opposed under any circumstances to men and women in uniform being arrested anywhere in the world and tried before the icc court as a result
of their actions in either iraq or afghanistan? congressman, yes. and we will get back with you on the -- we'll get back with you for the record on the very specifics you're talking about. >> general, your answer would be yes also? >> same position, congressman. >> thank you. i yield back. >> time for the gentleman has expired. mr. klein is recognized. >> thank you very much. how are you? thank you for being with us today and thank you for your service to our country. difficult challenges, and we appreciate you taking these challenges on. general mcchrystal, this week when you testified before the armed services committee, explained that the taliban may react to the arrival of reinforcements with a shift of a symmetrical tactics, suicide bombers, increased use of improvised security devices. can you share with us, what are we doing to prepare our troops who are already there to confront these types of
asymmetrical threats and what are we doing to get the afghan military to prevent these as well? >> congressman, on the direct tactical end, we are doing extensive training on combatting improvised explosive devices. we're using a number of technical means from engineering technical, reconnaissance, drones and whatnot. we're using human intelligence as well. so we're doing the tactical things to try to combat the problem as it already arises. i think more widely, the real way to get rid of things like ieds is to secure an area. when you secure an area, it's like reducing crime in a neighborhood. rather than trying to stop each crime, you can increase overall security. what that does is the population becomes intolerant of ieds because we suffer the most casualties from ieds, civilians do. so we're working in that way to improve. our partnership with the afghans is the same.
we're trying to provide equipment and training as well so they have the same expertise. again, suicide bombers, it's mostly intelligence, sir. >> okay. as a follow-up, i think that one of the discussion points that many people are raising about the whole effort and the tactic and strategy is whether there's a different way to do this, which would be to continue with success to train the afghan military. we know the police continues to be a more complicated and a lot more effort. but continue to build the quantities of players there. and then use our military in a tactical way, special force, tactical way to go after al qaeda where they are in those areas. and of course this lends itself to the question of, these organizations do not respect national boundaries. we understand that. and the discussion has been pakistan, afghanistan. but also they can also be more nimble and they can pick up from one area and go to another area.
yemen, somalia, other weak states, if you will. what's to stop them? and what are we doing tactically to prevent them from going to other areas and how do you assess the threats of the other areas as being hospitable if we have success and eliminating them from afghanistan? >> congressman, terrorists and insurgents do best in undergoverned or ungoverned areas. they thrive on that. and they don't survive in areas that have effective rule of law and governance. what we're trying to do inside afghanistan is create, first, areas of security into which we can fill that vacuum with effective governance, hope for the afghan people so it becomes more durable. outside afghanistan, the same thing applies. we see terrorists moving to places like somalia, yes, ma'am 'em where there is less effective governance. our best way is to try to
increase governance. we need to complement that with precision strikes. so you can't allow leaders or sanctuaries to emerge. keep them under pressure as you do these other things. the thing about counter insurgency or counterterrrorism is there's no single answer. >> and i agree with that. i think those people who are questioning in our communities back home about the effectiveness of the strategy in afghanistan also recognize the threat of the taliban's influence and the nuclear issue, which is extremely important and is obviously part of the whole strategy. is this question about you don't necessarily need a whole nation state for al qaeda to operate in the notion it's all about afghanistan or iraq, they need territory but it could be square miles to train and to do some things. they could very easily move to another place even if we're 100% successful in afghanistan.
how do we respond to that notion, other than the nuclear issue, which is important, how do we respond to the notion of them picking up and going to other places and stopping them from doing that. >> like following a criminal gang around. >> do you have any other thought on that? >> no. i share general mcchrystal's assessment on that. it's a comprehensive diplomatic intelligence approach that is needed in this network. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you both for your extraordinary leadership and for your extraordinary service. let me just ask a few questions. number one, the iraq surge of 2007 deployed as we know 20,000 combat troops, extended the tour 4,000 marines already in iraq and constituted intervention to help iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods to help them protect the local population and to help ensure iraqi forces left
behind were capable of providing security. notwithstanding secretary -- or senator re ide's infamous statement that the war was lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything, stated back in '07, it did provide reconciliation. did the success inspire the afghan surge? what lessons, pro and con, were incorporated to the new beefed-up troop deployment? secondly, i agree we need an exit strategy but shouldn't it have been kept secret? why announce it to the taliban so they can craft and employ strategies especially after redeployment begins 18 months from now. and did either of you recommend that it be kept secret or go public? third what's iran's role in afghanistan today, including efps? is it increasing, diminishing or staying the same and what are we doing about it?
fourth, is it true that the primary source of funding for the taliban is not longer the opium trade by foreign donations from the persian gulf countries and others? what is your counter threat finance strategy for afghanistan? >> i will start on those, starting with the last first. i think -- we think that the funding for the taliban is probably evenly split between external donations, narco-related, and then money they can raise from kidnapping and other things inside both pakistan and afghanistan. neither the loss of one of hose three would not stop them from operating. we do have an extensive counterfinance task force that focuses on this. i think we are focused pretty hard on it. back on the first one, the @@@@