David F. Helvey, acting assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs; and Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Matthew G. Trollinger, Joint Staff deputy director for Middle East politico-military affairs, testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the drawdown of U.S. and coalition forces from Afghanistan, May 20, 2021.

Transcript

Thank you. Senator Peters. Let me recognize. And uh how we please? Thank you. Mr Chairman, thanks to both the witnesses for being here. Thank you for your service. Mr Hell V Let me start with you. Can you give me your assessment of whether our withdrawal in Afghanistan will allow the department to focus more resources and attention on our pacing theater, the end of pacific and china in particular. I think the intent would be that yes, as we as we withdraw our forces and reduce our commitment in Afghanistan while maintaining the ability to monitor Afghanistan for counter terrorist threats, that resources that we would be able to to, you know, a crew we would be able to distribute to our other other areas, including in the pacific where we face the face of challenge. Let me and I assume just on that point that when you talk about distributing resources elsewhere, I assume that pay calm and the china challenge in particular would be at the top of the list in terms of receiving any resources that were freed up. Is that fair to say, Sarah? I can’t speak for the Secretary’s decision on that. But I know he’s spoken about looking to redistribute resources to our pacing challenge. Very good. General Mackenzie said last month Mr healthy that he’s concerned about the ability of the Afghan military to hold on after we leave. That’s a quote from him. Uh, knowing that if the Afghan military collapses, the Afghan government probably would too. So with that in mind, is the department currently developing plans for achieving our counterterrorism objectives should the Afghan government collapse? Senator? Yes, we are we’re looking at developing mechanisms or plans for doing over the horizon counterterrorism capabilities. But also add, we are looking at ways of providing continued support and assistance to our Afghan partners. Even after we conclude our retrograde plan, let me ask you about some of the partners. Is the department considering reconstituting the Northern alliance or finding other ways to work with local partners there in Afghanistan to achieve our CT objectives, Senator, our principal focus is working with the government in Kabul and how we how we would do that. Those plans are still being developed and I’d be happy to talk in a little bit more detail in the closed session. Fair enough. You said last week, Mr, healthy that sustained funding for the Afghan security forces is going to be critical for achieving our CT objectives in Afghanistan. Let me just ask, you know, given the, I would say notable lack of success we’ve had thus far with the Afghan security forces in terms of standing them up, achieving a high level of efficiency and output. Under what conditions are we willing to say? Would you say that the afghan security forces are no longer effective in US funding for them ought to be reduced or eliminated. Uh Senator, I would say that we have had some tremendous success in working with the Afghan afghan forces, the Afghan Air Forces and Special Mission wing in particular uh In the Afghan special Forces have been very close partners for us through our C. T. Uh CT missions. Uh To your point though, there there will be a time and this has to be how we look at what the criteria would be for uh you know adjusting our Security force assistance planning and that is part of the work that we’re doing today uh in concert with the United States Central Command Joint Staff and our presence in Kabul to look at what the different um you know, criteria would be or indicators would be to adjust how we provide that type of assistance into whom. So has the department developed criteria then for adjusting or terminating the forces on the Afghan security forces fund? No decisions have been made yet. But we are looking at what we are doing, prudent planning right now to look at how we’d be able to provide that and and how we may look to change in terms of as the security conditions changed, decisions have been made. But you you have developed criteria for assessing our continued support and uh what we might do, they’re going forward in terms of continuing or terminating the fund. Is that right? I think that work is still being being developed. I understand from joe McKenzie that he intends to provide a lot of his recommendations to the secretary by the end of this month. So I’d like to let that process young continue. I’m asking because we spend to the tune of $4 billion dollars a year on this objective. That’s not an insignificant chunk of change. That’s in fact about what we spend each year on the pacific deterrence initiative if I’m not mistaken. Has the department done an analysis of whether we can achieve our counterterrorism objectives in Afghanistan? If the Afghan security forces are no longer viable if they collapse. In the in the absence of a capable and willing partner, our ability to do our cT objectives in Afghanistan becomes significantly harder. But as the as the general indicated, uh based on historic precedent, we have been able to conduct counterterrorism operations exclusively from over the horizon. However, having a as I said, a willing and capable partner in Afghanistan is a critical piece of our our CT capabilities. If that goes away, it becomes much harder, greater risk and it will be more costly. This is my last question, MR. Chairman. Just on that point, the partner, maybe the security forces or it may be other. It may be the Northern Alliance. It maybe it maybe other allies or partners. I mean, not allies partners in country though, right? I mean, doesn’t have to be security forces. Is that right? I history would indicate it doesn’t have to be the security forces. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator Senator Blumenthal, please. Thanks Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for your service and your testimony here today. Mr Shelby. And your answer to the ranking members question uh concerning the special immigrant Visa program. You made mention of the need for legislative changes to the program. I think we’re very unified on this committee and our resolve that we provide this access to people who have put their lives and their families seriously at risk. And I am wondering what legislative changes you have in mind that you would recommend? We do. And uh, would you be willing to provide this committee with a specific proposal for those changes that you envision senator is? It’s my understanding that the National Defense authorization Act has has historically been the vehicle through which we’ve received additional quotas or or increased numbers for uh, for those that could participate in the Special Immigrant Visa program. That’s right. They have numbers. But I understood your answer to be including also proposals for reforming perhaps the criteria, the procedure or other acts. My my my statement center was speaking specifically to the numbers and the resources that are necessary to be able to to to execute the Special immigrant Visa program. You would recommend more resources. Yes, Sarah. There’s there’s there’s a resource requirement. Let me ask both of you. I know there’s been a lot of talk so far this morning about kinetic efforts anti terrorist efforts after our withdrawal in Afghanistan. I want to focus on the non kinetic efforts, such as limitations on international travel, fundraising, financing, fund transfers and what can be done to mobilise both our resources against it and multilateral organization efforts against Well, senator, as I indicated, we have learned a lot over the past 20 years, uh, in terms of how to how to go after in and defeat international terrorist groups, uh, there’s work that we there there are things that we’ve done domestically, uh, and there are things that we are already doing internationally with our with our partners. I think, to the extent that we continue to identify ways and those tools that we can use unilaterally or in concert with allies and partners to better illuminate terrorist threat networks and then prosecute them. I think that’s that’s that’s necessary and important. Whether whether it is things like, you know, financial action task force work to be able to go after terrorist funding and fundraising or trying to harmonize our work for air travel or these types of ways to be able to uh, you know, close any vulnerabilities that we may have uh in in identifying potential terrorists and and preventing them from being able to travel, fund raise, recruit training plan and execute operations against us. How well our allies doing in cooperating with us in trying to stop the transfer of money, the financing? Yeah. Uh Senator, I think the Department of Treasury would be best positioned to answer those types of questions as they are the lead in in the terrorist financing. In what areas are you the lead? So I I advised the Secretary Defense on matters of defence policy and strategy. And so with respect to our our defense policy strategy, our operations, the resources that we have in supporting our Afghan defense and Security Force Partners, cooperation with allies and partners in counterterrorism policy. Um that’s that’s where my uh well, the taliban reportedly earns uh $200 million dollars or more from drugs, illegal timber pistachios tax imposed on taxes imposed on the local population. And there are revenue screens from funding sources, all of it going to support the military operation. How satisfied are you that we are using every tool we have to combat that full of funding. Uh Senator, I think, you know, I think you’ve highlighted, you know, one of the key challenges in Afghanistan has been trying to reduce the taliban’s access to resources. Part of the South Asia strategy was focused on looking at better ways of going after uh in particular the drug network Within Afghanistan. To be able to prevent the Taliban from gaining access to those resources. This has been a very difficult problem that has has persisted over the past 20 years. I think there’s there’s more work that can be done. That will be much more difficult obviously if we’re not there, so we’ll be reliant on working with the Afghan government uh to address that uh to be able to maintain the law enforcement and the counter narcotics work within their own country. Thank you. Thanks. Mr Chairman. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal. Now let me recognize via Webex. Senator Warren, please thank you. Mr Chairman and thank you Mr. Hell V. And general challenger for being here. The U. S. First sent troops to Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda and their taliban host And to prevent them from using Afghanistan as a haven to launch another 9-11 type attack that was 20 years ago. And we accomplished that limited objective rather quickly. But then our military took on more and more responsibility from building an entire Afghan national army from scratch two stemming the drug trade to fighting Afghan government corruption. General challenger. We’ve been training the Afghan security forces for more than a decade now. We’ve been providing them with the best equipment with hands on training and enabling their operations with american air power. So have the taliban and associated militant groups had access to that level of assistance. Senator I I don’t I don’t believe if I understand your correct your question correctly. Uh They have not to my knowledge had any access sort of. Okay, so so here we are uh that we have given all this assistance to the Afghan army. The Taliban hasn’t had that kind of help. And yet the taliban prevented us from achieving anything close to the security conditions that we’ve been seeking or else we would’ve left long ago. So does that suggest it’s it’s bigger than just a military problem? But let me ask you, Mr. Hell v does corruption remain an endemic problem in the Afghan government? Sarah corruption is a problem in Afghanistan. Okay, and does the government still lack the public support necessary for it to govern effectively across the country? The Afghan government does maintain a popular support. I think that support, though, is not evenly distributed across the country. So I take it the answer to the question, Does it have public support necessary for it to govern effectively across the country? I take your answer then, is no, they do not. Uh Senator the presence of an insurgency, The presence of the taliban indicates that the Afghan government does not control or popular support everywhere in the country. They do maintain uh large support within the major population centers, uh and in large parts of the country. But so they have partial support did the Afghan government’s inability to govern effectively inspire support amongst the population and give the Taliban space to grow and build support. In other words, the Taliban has done well, and is part of the reason for that, because the Afghan government has not been able to govern effectively and inspire support among the population across the country. I think there’s a there’s a lot of different factors that influence the taliban’s ability to maintain its presence and support locally. Part of that has to do with uh you know, weaknesses within the Afghan government, but part of it also has to do with historical cultural, tribal uh affiliations and relationships. But to your point, I think the fact that the government has had challenges in in in maintaining popular support across the country has created a space for the taliban uh to continue to grow and operate and present challenges to the government. But look at what you’re saying the root of Afghanistan’s problems. Our political and cultural in nation. The United States military is the most powerful in the world, but our military alone is not responsible nor designed for solving political problems. It’s been said before, but it bears repeating again. A conditions based withdrawal was a recipe for staying forever. And I am glad that President Biden recognized this and has made the long overdue decision to end our military involvement in Afghanistan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Warren, let me recognize via webex. Senator Hirono, give us a check. Secretary. Help me I know that you’ve been asked by a number of my colleagues, their their concerns about the uh afghani women and Children, but I want to reiterate uh my concern and add add to that of my colleagues. Earlier this week, I joined a letter with my colleague, Senator Shaheen and Senator Collins to President Biden, asking him to appoint an ambassador at large for global women’s issues to serve as the senior administration’s official responsible for coordinating us government efforts for the protection of women’s rights in Afghanistan. So my question is, what is your assessment of the Afghanistan government and security forces ability to protect girls education? Let’s just focus on education in the country. Mr Secretary Senator, thank you for the question. Thank you for your support for Afghan women and girls. Uh yeah, I think we’ve been able to see significant progress in Afghanistan since 2001 advancing human rights and opportunities specifically for women and girls and education is an important part of that. I think, you know, the the the contributions that that women have made in Afghanistan in the progress uh that those contributions have been able to cross the society as a whole are are remarkable. Uh You know, we continue to work, you know, using the tools that we have as a Department of Defense uh to try to continue to promote the role of women in in peace and security and the role of women in the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces. Uh You know, I know the State Department and the U. S. Agency for International Development are looking at this through their resources, tools, mechanisms and authorities I can’t really speak to, you know, the Afghan government’s ability to provide for education. Uh But I I can say that in terms of what we’ve been doing with the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces is to increasingly promote the role of women uh as part of the the N. D. S. F. Are you saying? I’m sorry, mr Secretary, but are you saying that the Afghan security forces and indeed the Afghan government has as a priority? The the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, Is it a priority? Uh center? It is a priority. It’s built into their constitution uh and that it is part of the development of the A and E. S. F. This is something that President Ghani has has highlighted, and this is something that I think, you know, we as part of the international community, have also uh impressed upon the Taliban, that we will be paying very careful attention to how the taliban treats women, girls in minorities in Afghanistan. That’s that’s an important part of yeah, our diplomacy in this space and I don’t know what leverage we have to change how taliban treats women and girls because their track record is terrible. And the concern is the reality is that should they come back into his power, which to me is a matter of when not if then I think that the rights and protections for women and girls in Afghanistan will go down the drain. And I really think that that is a realistic assessment of what’s going to happen. So at the least shouldn’t we be appointing a single ambassador at large, which remains a vacant position to serve as the administration’s point person, especially for those of us who want to very much be focused on what’s going to happen to Afghani women and girls after we leave. Sarah, I’m not familiar with your specific proposal for an ambassador at large, but that’s that’s something that I believe the State Department would be looking at in concert with the White House. So my colleague Senator Warren talked about, you know, what is actually happening in Afghanistan and what the future looks like. Because you mentioned that tribal tribal chiefs and the first time I went to Afghanistan was back in 2000 and 6 to 2000 and seven or so, when at that point, we were told that the Afghani security forces were being trained and they were going to be able to uh take care of the security needs etcetera of their country. And as uh Senator Senator Warren pointed out, it remains um not so uh and so Afghanistan historically has never had a central government. You have all these tribal chiefs who are not about to listen to whatever it is emanating from the central government because that would mean they would be giving up their powers. So, you know, the political and cultural aspects of Afghanistan is something that I don’t think our country um really appreciated or understood very well. And so these are issues that arise any time we go into a foreign country where we do not necessarily assess accurately the cultural and a political dynamics going on in that country. And we certainly can swoop in and try to make change that can be sustained militarily. And I’m seeing the military, I’m sure did its best. But here we are. So I don’t know if my time is up. Mr Chairman. Yes it is. Senator. Okay, thank you. Thanks very much. Senator Romeo. Let me recognize Senator Sullivan, thank you Mr Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony here on a really difficult topic. But I think the bottom line is that as well as this is being planned out we need to plan for the worst for the worst case scenario. And I think the worst case scenario, from my perspective reading the intel it doesn’t seem like it’s a even an unlikely scenario is that the government collapses in the taliban or some rump group related what could be in charge or that we see a civil war within the next several months. Would you agree that’s the worst case scenario right now. And how likely do you think that is general? What do you think? I acknowledge the range of possible outcomes to include that one that you’ve just described? Mr Hadley. Uh Senator I I I I would be happy to discuss a little bit more detail in the classified setting. uh, intelligence assessments, but I think you’ve described a range of outcomes as the general indicated that we’re looking at. So it seems to me, let’s assume a worst case scenario, a civil war or taliban or God forbid al Qaeda in charge again of that country, a terrorists potential safe haven. So general, how far along are we on kind of a I know it’s already been discussed, but a cT presence capability, because I think everybody here agrees having this country Afghanistan as a safe haven for major violent extremist organizations, particularly al Qaeda or IsIS or the taliban is not in the interest of the United States at all. So how far along are we on dealing with the capability to address that primarily having either and over horizon CT capability or CT capability from a neighboring country. Senator, uh that planning and coordination is ongoing. I can’t characterize how far along we are other than to say that the intent is to maintain a seamless capability. What we have currently in Afghanistan as we transition that to other places in the region to again ensure that we’re able to meet our overarching objectives of of preventing al Qaeda or other terrorist organization from flourishing in Afghanistan. So let me turn to another element of if it, given the worst case scenario. And that’s I know it’s already been discussed, but I think it’s an important one. I want to highlight. Mr Chairman of op ed, written by your Senate colleague in mind, Senator Sheldon White House of Rhode island, who wrote an opinion piece as the US withdrawals from Afghanistan. What is our plan for the aftermath? Would you like it, including the record? Yes, sir. Without objection. So, um I’ll ask us both of you when General Mackenzie was testifying here couple weeks ago, I asked him the question if he thought countries had honor, does the United States have honor? He said yes, I would agree with that. And I do think that if we’re looking at a worst case scenario, you know, in Vietnam all told 123,000 South Vietnamese Vietnamese civilians and military personnel ended up in U. S. Custody for processing as refugees. I think if a year or two from now anybody who cooperated with our military forces in Afghanistan is being hunted down or killed, this will be a horrible thing, of course. And if we have the ability to prevent that kind of the way we tried to in Vietnam at a big scale, I think it’s in the interest of our nation to do that. I think it’s it goes to the honor of our country. These are people who have sacrificed risked their lives to help us when we were there. And if they’re going to be at risk, we should try to do something to help them general Mr heavily. Do you do you agree with that? And do we have plans to do that at a large scale, the way we did in Vietnam Sarah, I do agree. We do have a moral obligation to help those that have helped us over the past 20 years. And we are uh, working intensely with uh, with our interagency colleagues to identify, you know, those those mechanisms and the resources required to provide that type of assistance. We’ve talked here about the special immigrant Visa program. There are other authorities uh, that we can use with respect to assisting those afghans. You know, that provides significant public benefit or for humanitarian parole purposes. So, yes, this is important. This is an important thing that we we should do. Uh, and if the security conditions deteriorate, uh, and if we’re given an order to to take other means and other other other mechanisms, we would have the ability to do that. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Uh let me know, recognized by a webex. Thank you. Mr Chairman, I want to a second Senator. Sullivan’s last comment. It is imperative that we do not leave those who risk their lives and the lives of their family members behind. It was not just in Vietnam that we helped reach out to those who who helped american troops, but we also are President Clinton actually sent in An aircraft and air lifted. Many Kurds were being hunted and killed by Saddam Hussein in the early 90s after the first Gulf War and brought those Kurds to safety. So, uh, Senator Sullivan, if you are going to do any work on this, I would be happy to join you on this effort. Um along those lines with not leaving folks behind. I do want to bring up a discussion on the matter of the utmost importance in Illinois. That is the safe return of my constituent marc fredericks. Mr Frerichs is an Illinois and a Navy veteran. He lived in Kabul for years working as a civilian contractor before he was kidnapped on january 31st in 2020. And without military rely, more and more on contractors. These americans who are there as contractors are there on behalf of us but lack the protections that our troops have when they are in places like Afghanistan. The information that we have right now indicates that the Taliban or its affiliates, Let me, the Haqqani network are holding mr ferris in Afghanistan or Pakistan. He was kidnapped on January 31 2020. We believe at the moment that he remains in okay, physical help, whatever that means. Uh Mr Frerichs, His family is terrified by his ongoing captivity and have advocated seriously for his safe return. They were deeply disappointed that the trump administration failed to use february 29th 2020 deal with the Taliban to secure Mr Frerichs release. And the recent announcement that we will be withdrawing options of Afghanistan has heightened their fear. As they understandably questioned whether we will have any leverage to secure Mr fredericks return once we no longer have a military presence in Afghanistan and I have repeatedly raised Mr first case with members of this administration, in letters with my colleague Senator Durbin in briefings with cabinet officials and a call with the lead negotiator with the taliban and with the with President biden himself, everyone, everyone has assured me that they are aware of Mr Frerichs and are raising his status in ongoing diplomatic negotiations with the taliban. And I hope that consistent with president such as the late Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke using the Dayton accord negotiations as leverage to secure the release of kidnapped american. I hope that the biden administration will prioritize every avenue available to achieve the release of Mr Frerichs. Gentlemen, we cannot fail at this mission and we certainly cannot abandon an american citizen behind in Afghanistan. We must pursue every path available to make sure that Marc fredericks is safely returned to his family in Illinois. And now OsD has as a long standing relationship with Pakistan. And in fact Secretary Austin just spoke. But Pakistan’s chief of army staff a few weeks ago on April 28. And Haqqani network operates on the Afghanistan Pakistani border and there’s a good chance that Mr Frerichs is actually in Pakistan right now. We should be leveraging our relationship with Pakistan to help secure Mr Frerichs return. And I discussed this issue with the with the Pakistani ambassador a few weeks ago and he agreed to take the message back to Islamabad. The D. O. D. Presently has an opportunity to use Senior leader engagements and other interactions with the market with the Pakistani military to raise marks case and seek Pakistan’s assistance in securing his return. Mr healthy. I know this is long preamble, but it’s very important, certainly important to Mr freeze and his family mr healthy as to Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for indo pacific security affairs. You are the principal advisor to top D. O. D. Leadership on issues related to Pakistan. Will you commit to pursuing opportunities to advocate for Mr clerics and seek his return through our cooperation with Pakistan’s military Senator. Absolutely thank you withdrawing our troops in Afghanistan without securing the safe return of my constituents. Mr Frerichs would be an abject failure of the United States government to rescue an american citizen, a Navy veteran, somebody who was there because the D. O. D. Decided to use more contractors and an Illinois who served his country. As I said in uniform, now is the time to redouble our efforts to make sure that we secure Mr very safe release and bring him home. Thank you so much. I yield back Mr Chairman thank you very much. Uh Senator doctorate. Uh awesome. Let me now recognize via web back Senator Rosen. Thank you Tara Reade appreciate it. Ranking member in her office is a really important hearing. Thank you to the witnesses and I want to start by expressing my gratitude and my respect to the hundreds of thousands of US troops who bravely served in Afghanistan, including members of my own team and the brave men and women of the Nevada National Guard. I’m particularly thinking of the 20,722 troops who bear the scars of battle and we prepare for memorial day, the over 2400 U. S. Military and civilian personnel who didn’t come home and their families who mourn their loss. Every day, we have to talk a little bit about the continued support for the Afghan President biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal announcement. He stated that we’re going to reorganize our counterterrorism capabilities and the assets in the region to prevent a re emergence of the threat to our homeland from over the horizon and it will continue to support the government Afghanistan and keep providing assistance to the Afghan national defence and security forces. So, General Challenger, what is the plan for enduring for an enduring counterterrorism strategy that will be able to address encounter the influence of the violent extremist organizations which directly supports us to uh you know, influences the stability of the Afghan government. And how will we establish or build up in existing presence elsewhere to uh continue counterterrorism operations? Senator, that planning and coordination is ongoing currently. Uh and the the intent is to maintain a seamless transition from the capability that we currently have in Afghanistan uh to other areas and locations in the region so that we can continue to meet our objectives there. I appreciate that. So, mr healthy building on that. What will the U. S. Assistance to Afghanistan look like after withdrawal? We’re talking about looking ahead. Have we established agreements to fly our U. S. Air assets from neighboring countries like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, turkmenistan or others to provide the afghans with possible air support that they may need. Sarah. Thank you for the question. Uh in terms of support to afghan forces, um we’re looking at ways to be able to adjust that to an over the rising type of support things that we can do. That doesn’t require a large scale military presence in that country uh with respect to access basing and overflight those uh those negotiations, uh you know, our ongoing uh within the region to be able to to provide those types of arrangements that can enable us to to do that from within the region. Um As I had indicated in response to a previous question, we do already have significant capability resident within the Persian gulf region uh that can provide that now grant that’s a little bit farther away. But we would certainly augment that in look to augment that with arrangements that would be within the region closer to Afghanistan. Thank you. And I think another important thing that we have to think about is a countering our adversaries because has been discussed today. The decision to withdraw uh in addition to negotiate with the Taliban withdraw from Afghanistan raises concerns about the vulnerability of not only the Afghan government, the danger to freedom, women’s rights, civil society and of course, Taliban’s increasing territorial reach. And so what do we think? Uh Mr healthy? Can you please talk to us about Iran Russia and china, How you think, how they’re going to come in and fill the vacuum created by our departure? And what implications might that have uh for us? I think it’s it’s clear that there is a number of different countries around the region that do have that do have interests and that have the potential to exercise malign influence in in Afghanistan. Uh You know, part of what we want to be able to do in working with our Afghan partners is to be able to ensure that the Afghan government has the ability to provide for security and economic development uh and to be able to mitigate the extent to which other actors would exercise malign influence in that country. I think, you know, china does have an interest in Afghanistan, as we talked about before. There was uh you know, economic interest they do have, they do have concern about extremist groups operating in Afghanistan. But to the extent that China’s influence could be used to undermine stability instead of reinforce stability or support stability. Obviously, that’s something that we’ve got concerned about, Iran as well. Iran will will likely seek to exercise influence in negative ways uh in Afghanistan. Um Although I think there it’s largely to potentially frustrate and complicate our withdrawal. Uh And I think that’s something we need to maintain persistent vigilance of as we’re executing our retrograde. Well I appreciate I look forward to discussing these issues a little deeper fashion with all of you going forward. Thank you. Mr Chairman Time’s up. Thank you Senator Rosen. Uh With that we are completing the open session of this hearing. I would ask the witnesses to uh move to room SV 2 17 in the capital so we can conduct the classified portion of this. Let me thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony. Let me ask my colleagues to assemble in the president’s room either before or after. You vote as quickly as possible so we may vote out the nominations of Mr McCord for the controller and mr Moultrie for undersecretary for intelligence. With that, I will adjourn the old proportion hearing and again, thank you gentlemen for your testimony.