(noise) the subcommittee will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. this is examining the afghanistan tragedy. and i recognize myself for five minutes to give an opening statement. good morning, and welcome to the subcommittee on national security's first hearing of 2020. we begin this year as we did and 2019, with an examination of the u.s. war in afghanistan. after 18 years of war in afghanistan, this is now the united states longest running conflict and has taken the lives, and the has come out the cost if billions of taxpayer dollars. after almost two decades of lighting, al-qaeda and the taliban the situation in afghanistan has continued to deteriorate, and is at best a stalemate. today, the government of afghanistan lacks control over half of the country, and it is estimated that the taliban has about 60,000 full-time fighters, compared to 20,000 in 2014. meanwhile, isis the branch of the islamic state comprises between 2000 and 4000 fighters and plots terrorist attacks against the united states and western democracy. today's hearing comes after the washington post last month published hundreds of documents that reveal long-standing policy failures by multiple administrations in afghanistan. these so-called afghanistan papers were originally compiled by the special inspector general for afghanistan, as part of the agency's lessons learned project, and they demonstrate how successive administrations, democrat and republican, have misled the american people about the conflict in afghanistan. for example, doug lu, the war's are, and obama told cigar that the u.s. was, quote, devoid of a fundamental understanding of afghanistan we did not know we were doing, close quote. other interviewees describe efforts to distort statistics in order to hide a lack of progress, u.s. military adviser and retired army colonel said that surveys were, quote, totally unreliable, but reinforced that everything we would do what's right. and became a self looking ice cream cone, close quote. the trump administration stated objectives are, quote, to achieve peace, and ensures afghan soil it's never used again against the united states, its allies or any country, and allows american troops to return home, close quote. he stated, quote, conditions on the ground, not arbitrary turntables will guide our strategy. . the purpose is to examine a strategy, but despite defeated, the department of state and events refuse to make witnesses available, so we have nobody from state, nobody from d.o.t., and that is very disappointing, because i'm concerned that rather than implementing a coherent afghanistan strategy, u.s. policy is being driven by the latest and pulse of the commander-in-chief. for example, in september 2019 just days announced the u.s. is nearing an agreement, they abruptly canceled the release, they called it, quote, that only to restart the months later. president trump and officials have also publicly acknowledged the intent to withdraw, with or without a deal, which undermines our diplomats leverage and bargaining. national security adviser robert o'brien said, and i quote, this will be in a position some point with a deal or without a deal to release our military footprint in afghanistan, close quote. and in december 2019, secretary of defense esper stated that the u.s. would lower its force presence in afghanistan, quote with or without a political agreement. we can understand how that decrease is a sense of urgency to reach an agreement, if you're going to agree. if we all desire to return home, we must do so in a way that promotes our national security objective. to echo special inspector general sopko, our guest today, when he testified before our subcommittee last year, we must plan not just for the day after a u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan, but for the months and years that follow. only by doing so can we ensure the gains that we have made for democracy, and women rights in particular in afghanistan are not lost, and that the sacrifices of our men and women have not been made in vain. it is there for all the more urgent for congress to exercise its responsibility to conduct oversight of the trump administration strategy in afghanistan and for the administration to come here before congress and explain its conduct and its strategy to the american people. the refusal to do so today is extraordinarily troubling, by failing to appear at the trump administration is obstructing members of congress, of both parties from evaluating u.s. policy in the region and denying the american people the answers they deserve about the war they have already sacrificed tremendously for. that being said, i'd like to thank our witness john sopko for being here today, although mr. sopko is not an administration witness, nor does he represent the views of the trump administration, he has served a critical oversight function for many years, identifying waste, fraud, and abuse across u.s. reconstruction programs in afghanistan, and i look forward to his continued insights as our subcommittee examines the potential national security consequences of an anticipated withdrawal from afghanistan. before i returned to the ranking member, at like two adults that yesterday, military officials confirmed that u.s. aircraft crashed earlier this weekend near kabul, although initial reports about the cross and extent are still coming in i certainly hope that all passengers and crew are safe and accounted for, and now i yield to the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, and thank you for being here with us today, we appreciate you being available to provide testimony, and i share disappointment that they cannot be here today, it's a challenging job before them, but a very important one for all of us to be involved with and provide oversight, and i hope that we will be able to hear from them soon. it's been nearly 19 years since the united states began its efforts in afghanistan, after allocated attacked our country, killed nearly 3000 americans in new york the pentagon and pennsylvania, yet every time that we talk about oversight of our efforts in afghanistan, i believe we sound like a broken record. it's america's longest war and has held that title for a long time now, to date american taxpayers has been 780 billion dollars on combat operations, 137 billion on reconstruction efforts since 2002. so we are pushing a trillion dollars here. during that time, and in spite that money we've lost 2300 courageous american silversmith embers, during the conflict, and one stat that often is overlooked is over 20,000 who have been wounded in action. many of them very seriously, the united states has drawn down a military presence from a peak of about 100,000 under the obama administration, to less than 14,000 today. president trump and his administration are trying to achieve a positive and enduring outcome in afghanistan, in fact on august 21st, president trump announced the strategy for afghanistan and south asia that included taking tougher positions with afghanistan, further developing a strategic partnership with india, and that setting arbitrary timetables. moreover, president trump enabled secretary of state mike pompeo to appoint a special envoy, to negotiate peace talks with the taliban, and the afghan government. mr. sopko, last time you were here we discussed the 2019 high risk report and in that report, of, course it is released at the beginning of each new congress, identifying eight high risk program areas that are vulnerable, so waste, fraud, and abuse. so i hope today that we are able to get some updates on how the administration and afghan government are making progress in those areas. a month or so after the 9/11 attacks, the u.s. mission in afghanistan was clear. that was to root out al-qaeda, and those that harbor and protected them and then to ensure that afghanistan would not be a safe haven for future terrorist attacks. obviously, that is not an easy task. it required the u.s. to invest in the afghan national events to protect people in their nation and will equip the defense forces, and i would appreciate an update on how effective that money has been spent. i think it is important that we add some context to your testimony here today, as the chairman referred to, last december, we saw the release of the afghanistan papers from the lessons learned project that your office conducted in 2014. this investigation was a serious departure from your usual oversight, so today i'd like to learn a little bit more about the beginning of that project, and to hear more about it. during that investigation, your team conducted interviews with 600 people, including nato allies and afghan officials. and i think what one thing that we all learned from the afghanistan papers is that war is complicated. we know that. and it is especially true with the protracted and dynamic situation that we all are very much aware of in the middle east. people disagree, i get that and a war that lasts nearly two decades, obviously, strategies change along the way, but i believe president trump is making real progress, and we should let that progress play out. if it means that we can bring an end to this conflict, we should all welcome that. so, again, mr. sopko, i want to thank you for appearing before our subcommittee. you are a dedicated public servant, and we are grateful for your service. we appreciate your time today, and we look forward to your testimony. with that, mister chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. once again, i'd like to welcome our witness. today, we are joined by the honorable john sopko, the special inspector general for reconstruction. it is a custom of this committee to swear all witnesses. can i please ask you to rise? >> do you swear or affirm the testimony you are going to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative and the microphones are sensitive, so please speak directly into them. you have done this before on multiple occasions, i'm sure you know the routine. without objection, your written statement will be made part of the record. before i turn to you, i would like to make a motion, without objection that the gentleman from kentucky will be permitted to join the subcommittee on that day us, and be recognized for questioning the witnesses. without objection? so ordered. >> with that, special inspector sopko, you are now respected to give an oral presentation. >> thank you very much. chairman lynch and ranking member, thank you for inviting me here today. this is the 23rd time i have provided testimony to congress since i was appointed the special inspector general in 2012, it may well be the most important hearing to date. as you both are examining that very critical question, and that is if there is to be sustainable peace, in afghanistan are we prepared for the day after the signing? we are at a pivotal juncture in our over 18-year involvement in afghanistan. the potential for a peace agreement with the taliban is greater than at any time in recent history, while reaching a settlement will be challenging, sustaining it will be equally difficult. it will require coordination and deep confliction among the u.s. and afghanistan government agencies, as well as our coalition allies and donors. but most importantly, it will require addressing the serious risks that we set forth in the 2019 high risk list that we testified about last year. that report identified, as you have noted, eight key areas of the hundred 37 billion dollar reconstruction effort that we believe to be at a high risk of waste, fraud, mismanagement, or mission failure. as i explained last year, those risks do not miraculously disappear when the ink dries on any peace agreement. moreover, if not addressed, they may threaten the sustainability of any peace agreement. now, they are not taking a position on whether a peace agreement is achievable or practice supple, although we hope, for both, nor do we speculate on what provisions it should include, those decisions we leave to the administration, congress, and the april negotiators. but what the report does do is highlight areas that policy makers should be planning for now, because as i testify last april, failing to plan is planning to fail. now, i am heartened that under your leadership, chairman lynch and ranking member, this subcommittee has attempted to get to the crux of our high risk report. namely, what is our administration planning to do to address these serious threats. i am encouraged that you appreciate every effort must be taken to ensure that the progress purchased with the ultimate sacrificed of over 2400 u.s. members of the armed services, and over 2000 contractors, at nearly one trillion dollars and taxpayer dollars is not lost because we failed to adequately plan. unfortunately, since my last appearance, not much has changed on the ground in afghanistan. to diminish our concerns. the military situation is still a deadly stalemate. the afghan economy extremely weak. corruption, rampant. narcotics production is growing, reintegration of ex combatants, problematic. women's rights, threatened, and oversight restricted by widespread insecurity. our newest quarterly report, which will be released in a few days, discusses all of these threats, and in particular, highlights that if piece is to be sustainable, financial support from donors will need to continue and may need to continue for years to come. let me end with one additional observation, and i just came back from afghanistan at christmas time, and i expect to go within a month again, as congress and the administration thinks about how much money should be spent on reconstruction, they need to consider how those expenditures will be monitored and evaluated, and overseen. now, more than ever, i caution that if there is a peace agreement, and continued assistance provided to the afghan people, oversight needs to remain mission critical. otherwise, you might as well pile up all the dollars and euros and burned them for whatever good they can accomplish. i'm happy to be here and answer any questions, and particularly about the afghan papers that are in the moment. thank you. >> thank you mr. sopko, i recognize myself for five minutes for questions. and why don't we start with one of the key takeaways from the documents, released by the washington post last month, a so-called afghanistan papers. discloses how data and information has been distorted to paint a rosier picture for the american people about the war in afghanistan. for example, to u.s. military advisor and retired army colonel, his statement, every data point was altered to present the best picture possible, surveys were totally unreliable, but reinforced and everything we were doing was right. it stood out to me, because you have a person on the ground that is giving actionable intelligence in a way to the congress, in terms of the progress of how things are going there, also misleading the general public as well as its representatives. and when we have that going on, we also have a heightened classification of certain documents that i and we have been getting for years, and the american public have been getting four years in your report. so just to amplify that a little bit, you used to send us, in your reports a heat map of sorts where you showed the map of afghanistan, he showed the areas where we were, the government of afghanistan was in control of certain provinces and regions, it showed, in a different color, the areas where the taliban was in control, and it showed areas where we were contesting, or they were contesting government control. that stopped with this administration, that was new and different, so on top of the fact that we are getting inconsistent information, there are also concealing in some regard the information that we previously relied upon. according to the d.o.d., they stop releasing this information because the indicator of success was no longer the percentage of territory under government control, but rather, quote u.s. and afghan forces support of ambassadors diplomatic effort. that is a different metric. why would we? what's the reasoning of this, if you can shed some light on that, in terms of going from objective evidence to something far more subjective. and less evidence. you're talking about whether people supported him, that's a rather amorphous and subjective standard. it's difficult to follow and i'm troubled by it. it shows a rather diffuse and lack of focus. target in terms of something that is driving a measurement or metric that is driving our effort in afghanistan. . you are right on point and changing the metrics. i can't give you an answer because there never was a real good explanation given to us for why district control and population control was no longer relevant. and i think the point you made, chairman is apropos of a broader problem that we had every metric that we used to provide you, the congress and the american people in our quarterly reports, every metric that you would find useful is now either classified or no longer available. it is available in a classified setting, and i know chairman, you and i spent some time there briefing on it, you know how difficult it is to use that. but that is information that we have been providing four years, and it has been taken away. so it is a problem, but i can answer why they would eliminate that. >> when i was there in october, we asked general miller why that was the case, why we were not getting that information in a context that i could actually talk to my constituents about, because something like that is classified, even though i can go down, and i do, i go down to the scif and look at the heat maps and the other information, i can no longer discuss that with my constituents. that meeting or even among members of congress who do not have the necessary clearance. so that is problematic. in october i did ask general miller why fit, and i know speaker pelosi did as well about denying us those maps and that information. and he acknowledged the difficulty that presented to congress and the public, but i want to know to your knowledge, are they still abiding by that policy of not giving the united states congress that information? in a public format. have they still excluded from your quarterly reports? >> it is still excluded from our quarterly report, and you will see, i think we have sent another embargoed copy, you will see all the materials that were outclass, but we are not collecting that information. and i recognize the member from georgia for five minutes. >> i know we have discussed this issue that i want to discuss some other things, but there was something like 36 of the 1900 afghan chinese that have claimed asylum, we have an estimated 83 afghan trainees that have gone a wall with some believed to be in canada, and who knows where else. those are very high numbers and alarming numbers, and i know that we've talked about this, but we are all aware of the recent shooting at the naval air station, and it just continues to raise concerns regarding the training of foreign nationals here and u.s. military bases, so can you give a quick update on the afghan training program? . . >> the best i can give you is at the department of defense made a decision, but they are no longer bringing afghans into the united states for training. i don't know exactly where that is, if it is still some more coming in, but we did highlight, and i think you and i had this last time, you are concerned because of moody airport base, that was doing a great job. it was the premier training center for our air program, and they did a great job. they had no a walls from there, but apparently, we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, rather than following the movie approach to protect and make certain these people do not go a wall, the defense the partner says we are not bringing any of them, so i don't know if that is good or. not we have never equated it but i think it may be the last group that are still having some afghans coming through. >> to your knowledge, is that underway to wear no more trainees are coming? >> that is the best to my knowledge. >> that is mine to, i just want to have it confirmed. and those that have gone a, lot we have any update? have they been updated, and do we know where they are, or are they still missing? >> i don't think that we have any information on that because that gets in to that i don't think that we have done any follow-up on that. >> we checked but we have no additional information since last time that we chatted. >> that is concerning still, and i would like to get some answers. we will continue looking on that as well. let's move on. insurgent attacks on the afghan national defense forces and coalition forces are increasing. . what is the reason for the increase? . the the biggest problem, i think general miller and his predecessors have complained about is that the afghan military police, even though we train them not to do this, they stay in static positions, and are easy to pick off the biggest problem that we have seen, and our trainers have seen the only unit that is really good and are uniquely trained by our people, but they are in these small static positions, and are able to be attacked and wiped out by the taliban. >> there are some that would be possible, and if it did come about, it would decrease some of these attacks, what are your thoughts about that. >> we would hope, if there is an agreement, the attacks will go down, we are hoping there would be a reintegration of the 16 to 80 taliban into the economy, but the concern that has been expressed to us is that the taliban is not a monolithic organization, and the taliban is also not isis, and there are many other terrorist groups. so you may see a splintering, so even the best analysis we have as even if there is a peace agreement, there has to be a robust afghan military and police force to handle these terrorist groups and other illegal groups that are roaming around the countryside. >> that is my last question, if that were to happen, what do you do with all these taliban individuals integrating back in. is there a plan for that? >> that is so important, and that is why this hearing is so important, and what you are doing we have to plan for that, and we have a whole lessons learned report henry integration, and we explain how difficult it is, how expensive it is, so you cannot just, all of a sudden overnight say, well we, are going to reintegrate 40,000 taliban that are armed, plus their families. you have to start planning for it. and that is why we totally support the efforts of this committee in trying to find out what is our government doing? >> we recognize the gentleman from vermont for five minutes. >> you're asking the right questions, and we need answers to those questions, mr. sopko is not the one that can answer them. we really have to have state and difference here to answer those questions, so i appreciate you asking them, but i would advocate for us as our chairman to pursue getting a state inquiry to answer them. second, it's so good to see you, i have been working with you and your predecessors,, and there are a couple of things that come up. number one, you have documented, your office has documented over the years, the abject failure of the nation building enterprise, you have to be careful in your language, it's not your job to give advice to this congress as to what our policy should be. but, what comes through very clearly is that the policy that we've had, by the way, a bipartisan basis with presidents, republican and democratic presidents has been nation building in afghanistan. total and complete failure, pipe dream, wishful thinking. and you don't say that. but the examples of the pipe dream policies and the unwillingness to come to the appropriate conclusion is evident. in the course of my time, remember there was folks in the state department who were only there for nine months. they wanted to get folks to libraries, and had to border expensive books, and a lot of these included our books with new photos on them, or depictions that just don't quite fit into afghan a libraries. we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on that did not operate, the planes that were urgently needed millions of dollars of cost taxpayers. all of that reflected the inability of this country to succeed in this wild notion that, from here in washington, we can build a nation in afghanistan. and the evidence that you have provided is the one thing that has at least forced many in congress, again on both sides of the aisle to ask the question if this works, or is it a pipe dream? i want to thank you, and it's on congress to demand what is the policy, and different from what has failed before, and what are the decisions we have to make? so, thank you for that. do you have any recommendations for this committee about how we can get access to more information? because it does appear that a lot of the classification systems are based on whether it is good news, not classified, bad news, classified. >> >> again, thank you congressman for those kind comments. and you basically stole my thunder. those findings we did lay out and the lessons learned report, so i think anybody that read the washington post articles would realize there's nothing new there. we have been recording problems, including mendacity, hubris. shaving records, they love bottoming, everything else that you mention. it is tough for me to tell you, congress, how to do oversight. what you are doing right now is what you need to do. visiting the country is what you need to do, i think when the chairman goes, and it's a very dangerous trip and i don't lightly say it's an easy trip, but when you go out and talk to people, you talk to the troops, you meet them in the dining hall or after hours, it's amazing what you do, and that's how you do it. if you don't come from the administration, i can't really tell you what more to do. >> gentleman yields. mr. green is recognized. >> as a guy who was deployed in afghanistan, i think guys will be surprised, but first let, me thank you for being here. the washington post article detailed, are we investigating exactly deceived to hold those people accountable for that deception? >> congressman, no, i don't think anybody is, and if i can just take 50 seconds or 30 seconds to explain, and i know the ranking member alluded to that. we did not issue that report, we have been doing lessons learned report since 2014, actually at the recommendation of members of congress, also ambassador crocker, when we issue those reports that identified buildings that melted, they wanted to know what does this mean? what does this all mean. you keep finding failure after failure, so we decided to embark upon trying to learn some lessons from those 18 years. and what happened is, in the course of that, we got a lot of information, we viewed a lot of cables, an interview a lot of people. some of the people we interviewed were reflective of what happened ten years ago. and basically they were saying that we did not know, but that was after the fact, deflecting. it was very useful information but a lot is war fighting. and they deal with reconstruction in the training, we don't look at whoever we should be or not. when jennifer flynn say we should not be there. it's not that these people were evil, they are just reflecting what they saw and reserved. >> there was no intentional deception. >> i testified last week and i knew that there was this system that forces the government, because they're out there on short rotations, they want to show success. the whole system is almost geared to give you, almost to the president, they get information from people out in the field, because somebody is on a nine month rotation. he has to show success, and that goes up. what we need to do is reach out and kick the tires yourself. >> there's this point, people want to be successful. they put a rosy spin on it, we in congress don't like to hear negative stuff. we don't seem to tolerate it very well, even despite the fact that maybe the only answer. i'm sure you are aware that an android app can't run on an apple operating system. are we trying to run systems over there, are we trying to create ways of doing business when the operating system won't ever allow us to do it? are we wasting our time, and if so, what happens to both afghanistan and the united states if we just walk away? >> well, congress, i don't know if i can answer the bigger question about what are we wasting our time or not, i will leave that to you and the president to decide. but, we are giving them systems, whether it's military hardware, or other systems, that they cannot use. and one of the questions we ask early on its, to the afghans know about what we are giving them, will they use it, do they want it? and we cannot even get government agencies to ask those questions, and i have run across afghans to said, i did not know that clinton was being built until it was given to us by the donors. >> and your lessons learned do you list its efforts of ours that have failed or will continue to fail? >> through all of our reports, and were happy to brief you. >> the gentleman years back, miss kelly is recognized. >> thank you. as you noted, the recent reporting by the washington post and the continued work of the special inspector general has shown that the american people have been misled. mr. sopko, when you are with us you told the committee that you believed, and i quote, that transparency is the best policy for everybody. when it comes to afghanistan, why does transparency matter so much? >> well, i think for too apparent reasons. number one, american lives are on the line, and if you just tell congress the good news, and not the bad news americans will die. secondly, we have spent more money in afghanistan on reconstruction that we did on the entire martial plant to rebuild all of europe, so it's a lot of taxpayer dollars. if you add in the 700 million on the war fighting, close to one trillion dollars, so i think it would behoove administration witnesses and igs to speak of truth to power to tell you what is going on and what is not. witnesses and ilet's be honest , that is the real dishonesty that we have been dishonest to ourselves a number of people coming here and testifying have tried to paint the good story. i don't know if it's for getting a promotion, or if it's just the american way. we also have this hubris, which i think was identified before, that we think that we can turn afghanistan into little america. another norway. we can't. that's the hubris. and i believe that you think part of that transparency is the ability for us to hear directly from the and the state department. >> i work 25 years working for other people and i believe in the openness, and that congress has a right to know. but maybe i'm a minority in this case? >> i hope not. you testified before our congress, and were asked how congress could stem the flow to afghanistan. your answer, hold more hearings but the defense department and usaid, will we ask them to justify their outcome, and i quote, congress has to weigh in and say, hold it, and we want to know the truth as glory as it is. and you continue to stand by that. >> if i can, and there's one thing that i could mention there. maybe incentivize honesty. and one of the proposals i gave because i was asked to come up with proposals, put the same requirement on the government that we impose on publicly reported situations. otherwise they will indict the people involved. they have the report when there is a significant event. so put that onus, but the truth of government act that you are duty bound by statute to alert congress to significant event that could negatively impact a program or process. so incentivize honesty. >> we've got trying to get the defense department and the state department, but they have been no shows. what kind of signal to sets and representatives when they don't respond to congressional requests? >> that's a difficult for me to answer. you have to ask them. i showed up when i got called. . do you think they have something to hide or they don't want to share the bad news? >> i think you're walking me into trouble, i think you have to go back to the people that you're trying to get in. >> and just another set of questions, mr. sopko and included instances of restricted oversight as an hindrance to reconstruction. the report stated that quote with or without a peace settlement, the u.s. in afghanistan and the reconstruction effort will continue to require a vigorous oversight. why is that the case? there are fewer state department eight people there, you need somebody watching, and there will be a tendency and the third party governor. we have reported in the past that, first of all, the afghan government is incapable of handling the money. we need to do a ministerial assessment to determine if they can handle our taxpayer money. secondly, we have some questions about these international organizations. the un and world bank, we've already identified have serious problems. and focus on protecting the u.s. dollars, that's why we need to keep our focus on that. >> the chair recognizes for five minutes. >> i'd like to agree with my colleague for vermont, and what we are doing is nation building. and they are appreciating that, this feels like groundhog day again, i don't know how many hearings i have been in with you and that clears it up because we invited the department of defense and the state department to also give us answers, and they are not here. if you did not exist, if you're department did not exist we would have not have any answers. so i appreciate you coming here. i want to start out, and ask about the money. let's start with the money. in 2015, i asked you, how much have we spent? the number was 113 billion. you graciously came back in 2017, the number was 121 billion. last year you were here, the number we spend was to 0.80 billion in the pipeline. can you tell us how much you have spent on afghan reconstruction at this? point >> congressman messy, i can't. the latest figure is 136.9 seven billion. so you can rounded off 237 billion. . >> that is staggering to me, just for reference, the entire federal budget for roads and bridges is 50 billion. 50 to 60 billion. we can double our infrastructure for two to three years from what we spent in afghanistan. when the afghanistan papers came out, i think it was a shock to everyone except the people that read a report because literally, what the report is what you have brought to congress, year after year. i guess people just have not been reading those. maybe this is what they did not show up today, because we get too much happy talk from them. let me give you an example of the happy top that we got, you probably remember this. the deputy assistant secretary of defense for afghanistan and central asia, i asked her out objective are drug interdiction programs were, and this is the heavy shock i got. it went down one year, it had gone up all the other ears, and somebody had the good wisdom to whisper in her ear, there was a drought. that's why it went down, and it has consistently gone up. i said, how do we measure the success? she started to tout the amount of money that they had spent. and the number of flights, and the fact that afghanistan was flying, so that is the kind of happy top that we have gotten. we need more of the real top that you have been giving us, but here's what i want to focus. on you have eight high-risk areas here in this document that you gave us today. and i encourage my colleagues to read it. he's made it very thin, most of these reports are thick because there is a lot of waste fraud abuse, he's reduced to eight things you can read now. the eighth one is what concerns me the most, and that is restricted oversight. you're the only one here today, yet what i'm hearing you say is, some of the numbers that need to be reported are being classified, and some of the numbers aren't even being monitor yet. can you talk about that, in the little remaining time that we have? >> that is a problem. we are getting into data, but the other problem we are starting to see, and every time i go over there are now from the last year, people at d.o.d. say, oh, we do not have any people any more that can answer your audit requests. and, please, do not do another lessons learned report because we do not have anybody that can answer the mail. and this is the concern i half, and i believe congressman welch was leaning towards that, and i did not get a chance to answer, but the problem is, as we reduce the number of troops, are we going to be reducing the number of people that are doing oversight over the 80 some billion dollars that the defense department has spent their? if we reduce, like we did that number of usaid officials, who is going to be around to monitor the money that we are going to spend, and you know the world bank is predicting, even if there is peace, we are going to have to spend more money? so who is going to be there, if you quote unquote, right size the embassy, and right size, the department of defense out there? there is nobody there to monitor, by the time inspector, just so you know about igs, there is a limitation to us, and by the time we show up on a program, it's gone, it's like the tv, detective cereal, you see a white chalk outline, of the body, the first line of defense is that soldier, who is monitoring the contract, or monitoring the afghan government, but if he comes back, because there is talk now to reduce 8600, we are to those 4000 troops come, from a big gun toters? or people who are trying to answer the mail and oversee how we're the overseeing the money? it's the building of the empire that you don't want to see, there is a soldier, who is trying to see, that if he comes back in the first tranche, who is going to be protecting your money? that is my concern. that is the big concern, getting out is a concern, we've kind of worked our way around that, you can't cut the oversight capabilities of aid, state, and d.o.d., in this drive for what they call right side. >> my time has expired, the chairman has been very gracious, i just have to say before we'll, back we shouldn't spend a dime if we can't track a dime over there, that is the way i feel about it. a very energetic and focused member this, committee five minutes. >> thank you very much mister chairman, and thank you mr. sopko for coming here, to speak with us, and to share your thoughts, and your concerns, we all, as you can here, are concerned with our afghan strategy, i think that across the board, you have heard that, it's one of the few times i here on this committee, we've all had some agreement going on, it's a welcomed feeling, one of the things i also have noticed, and have a concern, about is that under president trump, it seems that our policy now, is geared toward withdrawal of u.s. forces, initially it appeared that the administration stated objection in afghanistan was to achieve a peace agreement that a curious afghan's oil is never used again by terrorists against the united states, its allies, or any country, and allows troops then, to return home. i think that is, what you are talking about, about national security, so when you talk about the, trump administration, stated objective, and our own national security, would you say, mr. sopko, that those, are inextricably tied to one another? >> and i believe i can answer you absolutely correct ma'am, but also that has been our goal from the beginning, is that kick the taliban, out and tried to help the great and afghan government, to keep the bad guys out, from attacking, us that has been a constant goal of all the administration. >> however that goal seems to be very far in the distance, we have great difficulty in achieving that, correct? >> i think the obvious answer is we have 80, 000, or 60,000 taliban, plus you have five to 10, 000, i think isis members, and you have 20 other terrorist groups, they're so obviously we have not succeeded in keeping the bad guys out. or creating the government that can keep them out. so that it would appear to me that the trump administration, the administration's now goal, is to remove ourselves from this situation, because we believe that we can not, be the objectives that we alertly stated. you have a sense of what that is? >> i really don't have a good sense of what the strategy is, other than we are looking for sustainable peace, i don't know exactly what that specifically means, so i'm not really the witness for that. >> fortunately we don't have either the state department, or the defense department here, it seems to be now a goal, or a belief on the part of this administration, that when congress tells them to come to something, they don't need to follow that. i know you're not able to state what the state of policy is, but you have these eight high-risk areas, that you thought were key to being impediments to us meeting those good peace agreements. i wanted to ask, you i know that you can't comment on a potential, what a potential peace deal with it taliban, should look, like but assuming u.s. military withdrawal is based on a timeline, rather than meeting any of those high-risk conditions, do you think the risks you've identified in the high risks report, would be greater or lesser? >> if there is a precipitous withdraw, is that what you are saying? >> we have as the administration has done, by stating specifically the time and the numbers, through various sources, and not true over general austin miller, commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan, confirmed that the united states is already refused the footprint in afghanistan by 2000, despite the fact we have yet to reach a peace agreement, or different points where former administration, secretary pompeo, his directive from the president has been unambiguous, and the endless, horse drawn down and reduced, so with the tell a ban understanding that go, is based on a timeline of the president, rather than the need and conditions, do you think that the risk that you have identified, will be greater or lesser? >> nina i think the risk would be greater, the u.s. pulled out all of its troops tomorrow, and talking about all of, them i can't make a discussion, if you lift on 8600, but they pulled out all of them. the conflict would obviously continue as a stalemate, a lot bloodier, and a lot of people have said that the afghan government would deteriorate. the first thing that can happen, but if the funding, remember, 70% and if that money ended, i have said before, and i will stand by it, the afghan government will probably collapse. >> i just think, i can only think of the u.s. soldiers individuals that have been there all the shares risking life we believe we need to withdraw our troops at this point, it is just such a slap in their face. i yield back. . >> we recognize miss cox for five minutes. i want to thank our witnesses for being here, let me just give you a quick follow-up to the gentlewoman. it's in the trump administration trying to neutralize the taliban to make them a non belligerent group? >> i believe that is part of our use of more munitions, that is one thing to drive them to hand. >> according to the october 19 the, u.s. appropriated approximately 4.7 four billion in 2019, is that correct? >> i don't have the exact number but that sounds right. it's my fifth opinion that it goes to a variety of, things such as government assistance, humanitarian aid, civilian operations, and you indicated that, most of the money going to the government was coming from the u.s.. so is that right? >> that correct. >> how important is it that this money is being spent for its intended purpose, such as to support migration and refugee assistance, international narcotics control, and the afghan security forces fund? >> it is very important, and that is the concern that everyone has about the corruption and diversion of funds. the word corruption appears 80 times in the 2019 quarterly report. is it safe to assume corruption is a significant problem? >> sorry for interrupting, it is a very serious problem. everyone has acknowledged that. >> can the american people be assured that it is being spent for legitimate purposes and not corrupt purposes? >> as hard as we all try, i don't think i have a warm fuzzy feeling about the money being spent in its intended purposes. i don't mean to be facetious, ma'am, but the former head is an example. this is the combined training command, estimated at one point that 50% of the fuel that we purchased for the afghans disappears. >> 50%, so we're talking billions. this is a significant problem. >> what are the dangers if the u.s. were to turn a blind eye to this corruption? >> one of the dangers? >> what are the dangerous? >> the dangers are -- first of all, it would be a wax of taxpayer dollars. secondly, the concern is that the money is being used, it will actually hurt our security arrangement with the afghans. some of the units may not be able to fight because they're not getting fueled, or whatever. some of the biggest concerns they have is not so much the casualties, but the number of troops that are quitting or disappearing from the afghan military, and part of it is because of pay, and leadership problems. >> so, do you want to talk about how the united states has been involved in the anti corruption efforts? but other things that we are doing? >> well, what we are doing, and i must say, the former ambassador who just left, probably summed it up best when he told the afghans, and i don't think they would like to hear this as he was going out the door, that your future donations from the west what depend on how you fight corruption. so i think he gave a strong message, but we are trying to do is create a separate anti corruption justice center, and to go to the afghans to do that. it's a creating the untouchables that we did in the 19 thirties here. to focus on the big fish, the problems have been, and we have documented this two years in a row, because congress, the appropriations committee asked us to assess their corruption capabilities. and the corruption capabilities leave a lot to be desired. so we've been asked again to take a look at it, but we're trying to beef up their prosecuted capabilities. but you have to be political, and that is the problem we are all worried about. >> thank you very much, and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields, we are now pleased and honored to recognize the full committee chair for five minutes. >> thank you so much, and i want to thank. john sopko for your service, and also the chairman, i want to focus on the importance of women in afghanistan and the differences it has made with the america allowing them to participate in the economy, and in the education, we first went to afghanistan women were murdered and killed if they went to school and now we are told that we have made tremendous progress and they make up 14% of kindergarten to 12th grade, and 30% of university students are in it but, more than 170 higher education institutions across the country. , even in the most disappear pointing parts. i'm told that women are the majority of teachers at these schools, which is important. and according to the government reports some women make up 27% of the government replies fief. and they service deputy ministers, judges, and in many other positions, according to the united nations, maternal mortality rate they used to be second in the world and they have fallen substantially. it is because there are so many women, that are trained as midwives, and health professionals now. and are working to help other women. understand there over 530 public and private hospitals and hundreds of health and subhealth centers, and even if these numbers are exaggerated, women appear to be important part of the success, that is happening, certainly in cetacean in health care, wouldn't that alone make up our new investment, i know the united nations has made several reports that one women are educated, and empowered, and respected, the amount of terrorism in that country, or in that village goes down. investing in, women and allowing them, to be part of the country and not killing them if they go to school i think we made a tremendous-ing packed, i'm afraid if we go to leave, it will go back to the way it was, before my question, is she believe women have made a significant contribution to success in education health care? and also, if we left to some politicians are proposing, wouldn't it fall back to the other way, where they ... were being a woman meant you are almost not alive in what you are allowed to do? >> i'm happy to, madam chairman, i think you made a good point, and one of the successes that we've had, in afghanistan, but you've also raised the concern, i must admit, for all the trips i've gone there, and all of the afghan women i have talked to, i've not met one afghan woman who trusts the taliban. and the concern is, if they are excluded from the negotiations, or if the negotiations are done by man, and they ignore the advances, it is going to be very bad for women, in afghanistan, and so that is a serious concern i think we all have. >> thank you all ask consent to place in the record a letter written to secretary pompeo, accessing concern is the ig, that women have to have a seat at the table, the peace talks, so their rights are traded away, and lost, you mentioned the amount of corruption, do you think it would be a way of addressing corruption, if you had a certain percentage of the contracts, which are numerous coming from usaid dim eric and led efforts to lead the country, that they go to women led organizations, maybe the gas would get into the automobiles for the military. maybe the money would get to the place that it was intended. do you think that if we require the certain mount of the money got to women lead organization, and certainly any ideas that they have, i know the women's movement here in america, was pleading with the united stations, you have a seat at the table for women in the peace negotiations, and have your ideas, that she might have, on how we can include women in a peace negotiation. i would have to get back to you on that >> i know we have set aside programs in the past, congress is actually designated, a significant amount of money, should the afghan police, and the afghan military, to recruit women in that area, and i think there has been money set aside for women's programs for usaid, i don't know how successful that has been, we reported on that in relationship to the military and then the defense department classified that information so the amount to people being recruited and that was, they were versus, else is still there is a serious problem, that even though you have set aside money for certain things, in afghanistan, it's not spent, are going to have a report coming out soon ma'am, on the number of buildings we have built for women in the afghan military and police that are now vacant, you have to have a will on the afghan men's side, and that is the problem we are facing. >> mister chairman may i ask another question, a request, marie >> i do want to, without objection, and in order,. >> my question was not more women in the military, or more women in the police, my question was more women organizations, putting in charge of the finances, so get to the people, and not to corruption, years earlier i passed a bill, that was part of the appropriations committee, that 60 million people, going to afghanistan, given lead organization, i can get a copy of that legislation to you, and i would like to requests with the chairman's permission, a meeting to do in the women's caucus, if you can go over what happened to that 60 million dollars. if the problem is corruption, and then i would say, i represent a district that is a business district, it is a business castle of many different businesses, the stories that we hear from businessmen, are just horrible, they know that all of their contracts or through corruption a payoff, this kind of thing, american businesses felt like they could be treated fairly, they would invest in afghanistan they have to look at the assignments in contract because i hear they are incredibly corrupt, this is people now, going are giving, speeches saying don't go to afghanistan they're not going to treat you fairly, the american business felt it was secure an honest, they would have a lot of people coming in to help, in any event or to thank you for your service and your, leadership it's incredibly important assignment, we look forward to meeting with you again, of what happened that 60 million, whether we spent honestly, or we thought that it would help the people. >> madam chairman i would be very happy to follow, out i think we are actually embarked upon a new lessons learned, program specifically dealing with the gender issue, so i know my, staff who are working on that, we'd love to meet with yourself and other interested parties, as to how we should shape that lessons learned report, i look forward to that conversation. i would put women in >> charge of certain things, being a police officer, you are not in charge, unless you're val jennings is a member of congress, now running distribution of feud, or distribution of gasoline, or distribution of assets for the country, i think that the numbers speak for themselves, that the women have made an incredible contribution to health care, and improve the country, they can possibly improve the management and honesty of getting the money to the people to a democracy as we say in congress when you empower women you empower the country, we should use the same motto in afghanistan and see if we are given contrast to manage and do it honestly. that's the problem, you see my money is going to situations, is all corrupt, but the men are all in charge, if you, try it try a few sample cases, we created the human rights commission there, i've had some meetings with the people that run that, men and women, maybe they could be empowered to help honestly murray move goods and services, for the purposes that they were allocated, i want to thank you for your service, i just represent new york, and the attack on new york, i know, was planned, and put in place in afghanistan. and i hope and pray, that we do not go back to a situation where elements of evil are there, to plot and kill people around the world as they did they killed 3000 of my neighbors, and constituents in new york city on their attack on 9/11, and one of the reasons where there is to try to prevent that, i hope you are making that your priority as well. thank you. >> the gentlelady yields, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. just for the record, what is your opinion of why we are in afghanistan, why do we have u.s. presence in afghanistan, why are we there? >> the state is gold was to punish the people that the chairwoman just noted, who attacked the united states, and the help build a government, or help develop a government there, and its military and police that could keep, the taliban, or other terrorist groups that attacked us, from coming back in. >> how far would you say we are in that process? are we having success? >> mixed success, as i mentioned to one of the other members, the problem is we haven't succeeded so totally, if there are 60 some thousand taliban reportedly working in afghanistan mean, there is a war going, on as we unfortunately just saw recently, one of our points just went down, obviously we have not had total success. >> as been noted a number of times, corruption is all throughout your report, in afghanistan, one of the big issues here in congress is, you can say the road to 23 trillion dollars is paved with good intentions, we allocate money based on good intentions, but we do not follow up to ensure it's going to the right places, we've talked about, i believe the un agreement had us that we were supposed, to 51% of the share, supporting afghanistan was supposed to be by other countries, you mentioned is that 70%, what part of that is the u.s. chair? >> when i mention the 70%, what i'm referring to is the actual budget of afghanistan, 70% of it is supported by donors, i don't have the actual breakdown, we give the majority of, that other donors do participate. >> all right. and we've spent 133 billion, in reconstruction effort so far. >> that is how much has been appropriated, yes. >> you talk about 50% of the fuel going to other countries, and other uses that intended, what percentage of that would you say is actually going to its intended use, if you had to guess or estimate? >> we actually, at the request of former congressman walter p jones, and others, we did an analysis on how much money was wasted in afghanistan, it was a very difficult, long term project, so we looked at all of our contracts that we have reviewed, and so 52 billion of that 146 billion, we looked, at we basically determined up to 15 billion so about 30% was either wasted or stolen. that was just of the universe, that we had already looked at, so i believe as a result, has sent a similar request of d.o.d., to have them do the same type of analysis, to get a better picture murray. >> it was not doing what it intended what are we finding then? >> that money is either being stolen outright or went to programs which were a total waste. for example our counter narcotics program, how do we defined waist, there are three valuables that we as igs look, at inputs, outputs, and outcomes. we look at the outcome that the administrations told congress years post a rose, all four counter narcotics, it was to lessen the amount of opium it was to end that scourge, well it's been a total waste, none of our programs have led to any reduction, in opium in afghanistan. as a matter of fact, opium is the largest export of afghanistan, it's more than the licit crop, i think it's 1.2 to two billion dollars, in export, the licit, the pine nuts, and everything else they sell, comes to less than a billion, we looked at that program and said that is a waste, we wasted nine billion dollars, we have accomplished really nothing. >> what recommendations do you have for us, in holding that to account? what things can we put in place to make sure that money gets worth supposed to go? >> i think strictly asking people upfront, the administration is, what are you trying to accomplish? i'll go back to the letter that isis, and i know congressman lynch knows about, this back in 2013, and sent a letter to the sec, death sets state, and u.s. administrator, id i said can you list your top ten successes, and your bottom ten failures, and why, and this would force the ministration to iraq and stack their programs, list what works what doesn't, and try to understand what works there, they refused to answer the mail 2013 18, 2014 we came up with the lessons learned, you try to answer my mail to, you you've got to force the administration, to be honest, and it's not political. it's a republican democrat, the administration has to tell, you specifically, are you spending this money, what do you expect to accomplish at the end? are you going to spend 9 million dollars on counter narcotics, and the end result is that there are actually more opium being grown? are you going to spend 500 million dollars on airplanes? and they can't fly? you're going to spend millions of dollars on buildings that melt? you need to hold people accountable, you need to bring in the head of those programs, and say what were you thinking? don't be negative about, it just say look, if it doesn't, work just stop, do something, else but i am certain, congressman, i don't go, over i'm already, over i apologize, every commander the, net i've met six of them, i've been doing this now for god knows how many years, every one of them has, said this summer fighting season, we won, well if we have one, what does defeat look like? the eighth administrator, was pumping out happy top four years, so much so that we actually had the sea ice a come in and say, what usa ideas saying about the life expectancy, is impossible. it's impossible to double the life expectancy. if people were coming in, and giving you kites and balloons. they weren't telling the truth. you are the last person protecting the taxpayers money, you have to ask the top questions, you can't look at outputs, how many shoes they bought for the afghans, what was the outcome? can the afghan military fight? well you don't know, because they took away all of the metrics for success. so we don't know, and that is the problem. >> thank you can. >> now i want to recognize, one of the hardest working members of this committee, an exceedingly patient member of congress, the gentlewoman from michigan, miss lawrence, for five minutes. >> thank you tune amazing chair, i'm here today as co-chair of both the democratic women caucus, and also the entire bipartisan caucus, for this congress, i'm committed to's strengthening the rights of women, from 1996 to 2000, one they brutally, brutalize girls they are banned from the workplace, denied health care, restricted from earning a basic revenue. in fact, in 1997, one women's group called conditions in afghanistan, and i, quote inhumane gender apartheid. after the united states have dispersed almost one billion dollars, talking about outcomes, , in afghanistan for programs aimed at improving the health and status of women, millions of afghan women have voted and some now occupy prime positions in society. i am here today because i am deeply concerned that if a peace agreement is reached, the path taliban will revert back to always repressing women and girls. today, sir, you wrote in your opening statement that an important question a statement permit would be, and i, quote what kind united states due to ensure that women's rights is currently enshrined and that people are protected in a post peace agreement environment in which the taliban could become part of the political system? unfortunately the state department is not here, refused to appear, i cannot ask them, so i will ask you, sir. you give me any assurances or provide an explanation on what we will do to protect women's rights in afghanistan following a potential peace deal? >> i can give you know assurances that the peace deal will protect women. i don't know what is going to be included in the peace deal and a lot of this is also relying on the afghans negotiating with the taliban, so i personally can't give you any assurances because i don't know where about it's going to end up. if this is important to congress and to the administration, if it is important, and, again that is a policy decision that only you and the administration convey but, if you decide this is important, then the biggest stick you have for the afghans as well as the taliban, because the taliban want foreign assistance as well, that is what has been reported, is that 70% of the budget, there is billions of dollars that they will want and you have to hold their feet to the fire. it's called conditionality. so, if you want assistance you can't go back to your old ways. that will be the way i would borrow this but that is a policy decision that congress and the administration needs to make and then somebody has to stick with it. we have to be brave enough to say no to people. now the answer then, what happens if you pull the money? then the thing falls into civil war so you have to negotiate it very carefully. >> mister chairman, i am constantly confronted in america with how we have policies and laws that even in 2024 eight obstacles and barriers for women and we have been very successful in addressing those in the path and have so many more to address. i am on the record saying that we need to ensure that we use every level of influence in power and two ensure we have incorporated in this peace deal the protection of women in afghanistan. i thank you and i yield back. >> that is on the record. >> thank before we go to the second round, i have a procedural matter here, i would like to enter into the record, a report to congress, offered by the department of defense, in coordination with the department of state, gave december, 2019, so a month ago, untitled enhanced security and stability in afghanistan, without objections, were beginning the second round let's see,. >> i will now recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman, i'm still kind of stuck at this hundred thousand foot for you, and i think if we get that wrong, everything else we do down below, is a waste of time. clouds fits, i don't know if you've studied, much of an ex military guy, so a lot of us were taught about crossfit, it's his strategy, his appreciation strategy, one of the things that he sort of came up with, this concept of the center of gravity, and so if you are fighting a war, a military battle, you would look for what is the center of gravity, what is the one thing that if you turn that, you win the day, you might be the train, if you hold the train is the defeat of the military itself, or if it's controlling the cities, what is the center of gravity, fighting and afghanistan i think the guys got it right in the, beginning fighting the centers of gravity, rollers etc, taking control, people, hearts and minds, as the center of gravity, the government as the center of gravity, now we are trying to win peace, instead of win the war, my question is, what is that center of gravity, what is that one thing we have got to get, people's hearts and minds, value systems, ideology, what is it we have to flip, in order to be successful there? that's a very good question, i will try to take a stab at it this comes out of our lessons learned report on stabilization, which is that period between our military coming in, and clearing out the bad guys, we reinsert the afghan government, with certain development programs, to try to win the residents over, that's that, period stabilization period, to summarize it. we need to have a government, that the afghan people, trust, and believe in, and it offers a modicum of services, that those people, want because the difficulty we have, is that, for example, afghan people want a little bit of justice. they don't want to have to pay a bribe to get it. what we gave them, wear a bunch of court houses, that looked, nice they would fit in any american city, but that is not what the afghan people, wanted they wanted a modicum of justice, that they didn't have to pay a bribe. i would go back, if we are going to win over there, it goes back to winning the hearts and minds, it's not going to be a u.s. soldier winning the hearts and minds, we've got to have a government, that is trusted and believed and supported by, the average afghan, and a majority of the afghans don't live in the, cities they live out in the inter way. and out in the hinterland, it's bandit country. >> you talk about corruption and all of those things we gave a courthouse. but we didn't give him a system that works to create justice. >> that's what we didn't give. >> right, so what is the barrier, okay, we built a building and thought we did a great job, but what has to get fixed, for them to get that justice? is there some ideology, what pushes corruption in that space, or in that place? corruption comes from an ideology. corruption comes from value systems. is there something there that we can flip, that we can turn, that we can change? that will be successful? >> i don't believe, and i know what you're reaching, for i can't give you a silver bullet, i really don't know, i will think about it and i'm happy to come back and talk to you about. >> it let's get coffee or lunch. if we don't pick that, we can layer everything about america over the top of, it and it will never work, that is my concern. >> and the number of people agree with you on that, and it isn't just cultural, i grew up fighting organized crime with the department of justice, i differ morality, the mafia, it was a slow group, open a more broad u.s. culture, there, corruption is not just taking a bribe, it's endemic, it's tribal, it's part of that society, that's extremely difficult to overcome, it's how the system works, in part, one of the findings we had from her lessons learned program is, you really have to understand, the afghan people, their way of life, their culture and all of that, before you go in, and i don't think we really did. we did not appreciate that, and so we contributed to a problem just by pouring a lot of money too fast, i don't have an answer, i will be, honest i would love to sit down and talk with, you bring some smart people, people outsmarted the, me i just have the big, mouth i don't have the brains. >> gentleman yields back. >> we do not have state department, witness has requested we have the report, from last year, a month ago, are you familiar with this 25 report? >> yes i am chairman. >> so this is required, this is a report to congress required 11 and we can national defense organization, back in 2015, we get this report every, year one of the important parts, it discusses the role of the special representative for afghan, and reconciliation, he's the one that's doing negotiation with the taliban, and during june july in august of last year, the taliban and our special representative, geisha negotiation, in nine separate rounds of negotiations, they come up with four elements of an agreement. i want to just recount, those some of those are not surprising, three of them anyway, insurance, number, one assurance the taliban excuse me would not allowed terrorists to occupy a country. as concerns raised by a chairwoman, they won a timeline for u.s. withdrawal, they wanted equipment by the taliban, to meet with the government of afghanistan, because they are not on negotiations, right now number four, surprised, me and one other section, number one, they didn't talk about the status of women, that's on a major component, that's a huge problem, for the reasons that have all been stated earlier, especially by miss lawrence, and the chair, and also by miss plaskett, the other is, instead of having a cease-fire, which was our original request, they are now saying, they want, and i'm quoting, a reduction of violence, around the areas from which the united states is withdrawing. as i read that, we were asking for a cease-fire, a sensational violence in the country. a peace agreement. now we are saying just don't shoot at us while we are leaving. that is the way i read this. i'm just curious, as you can follow these negotiations, and the terms of what we are trying to negotiate. is that how you see it? >> i read at the same way you do, it it is basically, this is what the department of defense says is the deal, presented to the president, and thank goodness,, you basically said don't shoot as well were walking out the door, yes, i mean, i don't think anybody should trust the taliban to secure our peace, or the piece of our soldiers,. >> the other thing deeply concerning, there's been a flow of funding from the golf, spin extreme but dresses in northwest pakistan, and southern afghanistan. and pumping out, this is they'll bonding, madrasas, very very extreme. that's the fondly, these young men come up and they become part of the taliban. they view women as personnel property, we drove from kandahar city all the way down to stumble ghouta, on the pakistani border, and women are, they are not allowed out of the house, unless there in the presence of a male and their family. they have no range of movement, no freedom of movement, and i've great misgivings about delivering women of the afghanistan, into the hands of the taliban, that would be a disgrace, that will be a black mark on the united states of america. all freedom loving nations, if we allow that to happen, i'm very disappointed the terms these negotiations, as you see them, i'm hoping this is not the road we are down on, and the reasons i asked to have, is because i can ask him about this, they have refused to attend, we are going to have a vote later on, later on this week, on repealing aumf, an authorization of use of military force, that was agreed to, back in 2003, and i will tell you what, the fact that state department, and defends the, parliament have refused to come before this committee, and work with congress, i'm going to vote for, that for, it the only power i have left, if they are not going to come in and talk to us. if you're not going to give us evidence. then i have to take that power away. to the agree that i possibly can, it's not the way this country was meant to operate, so is to be a coal equal branch of government, it's supposed to be respectful of one. another and try to work for the common good of the people of this country. i just syria a serious breakdown in this regard. it's the only way i can push back. but i'm going to do. it mister chairman, vice chairman, excuse, me ranking member, keep going down in elevation. i don't know if you had anything further to add? >> okay, with that, let me just conclude, first of, all thank, you our witness, for the willingness to come before the committee, and help us with our work, members will have, five days, during which to submit questions to the witness, and we are hopeful that you may be able to get back to, us i know you have made some commitments to the, share and to others, to work on both sides of the aisle here, without objection, we have five legislative days in which to submit additional questions for the, winners which will be forwarded to the witness for your response, and i please ask that you respond as promptly as you are able, so where this committee is playing, i will give you a chance to respond, and we are extremely desirous, and getting you out to some areas, maybe to the training, and to the tax, east west northeast south, to maybe look at some of the things, you want to give further attention. too i'm sorry, do you have any last remarks? >> mister chairman, i'm happy to help you, and any other member of the committee, a preparing for that trip, they also identify places to see, could i ask just one thing to introduce in the record? you know there was some questions by the ranking member, about the afghan papers in the washington post, i did a letter to the editor, trying to correct the record on that report, could i ask that that be submitted as part of the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i think that clarifies our role, i think a lot of people confuse the issue, we answered it for you, my lawyer to answer it, and they gave those documents to, them we are still producing lessons, learn to report this image into the, chairman one on gender, issues so we think they are very useful, and they are very helpful. >> we thank you very very, much for your great, work you've been doing it for a, while we are extremely grateful for all that you do, and your staff as well, both here and in afghanistan, the hearing is now adjourned

Related Keywords

Norway , New York , United States , Afghanistan , Texas , Washington , Vermont , Kentucky , China , Syria , Togo , Ghouta , Dimashq , Canada , Kabul , Kabol , Pakistan , Iraq , India , Tennessee , Americans , America , Afghan , Chinese , American , Afghans , Austin Miller , Jennifer Flynn , John Sopko ,