mentioned earlier, safety technologies that address unintentional mistakes. sometimes intentional misbehaviors, and sometimes they are misbehaviors that truck drivers and car drivers undertake willfully, but technologies, the ability to have enforcement focus on those misbehaviors, and to the extend they can the mistakes, but that's tougher, and rules that really will make a difference. the electronic stable rulemake that they've been working on will save at least three times as many lives as the hours of service rules n terms of priority, that rule should be out there, we should be living under that rule for new trucks. i'll left it at that for the time being. >> major palmer, in your opinion, what's the most effective tool of law enforcement for preventing truck-related crashes? i'm going to let you answer that, but it could be stopping

trugts. i'm just wonder what you think the most effective tool is on this topic. >> yes, sir. that's an excellent question. what it is is it's difficult to identify from an enforcement perspective one thing that is the absolute to the big problem it's a comprehensive program is what it takes. for example, each state, including texas, obviously where i'm from, we have a comprehensive enforcement program to try to address commercial vehicle safety issues and highway safety issues as a whole, which includes all vehicles on the highway. so it really is the component -- it's partly roadside inspections of commercial vehicles. it's inspections at fixed facilities, which sometimes are

different, that are a different environment than at roadside. it also is a comprehensive program such as our compliance review program, to be able to look at motor carriers that have a propensity to have safety issues. it's also an aimpressive traffic enforcement program that doesn't necessarily just focus on commercial vehicles, because it is, you know, statistically speaking, you know, 70% of the commercial vehicle-related crashes, the primary contributing factor tends to go back to the noncommercial vehicle. 1 so, for example, in texas alone -- i could speak off the cuff on most states, but in texas alone, in 2013, all of these citations and warnings weren't up loaded, because they weren't done on an inspection

report. we did, in addition to all the of our activities we did as part of our commercial vehicle enforcement program, we also issued a little over -- in 2013, a little over 900,000 traffic enforcement citations, and another two -- a little over 2 million warnings. those are the ones that did not get uploaded as part of inspections. so to answer your question, sir, it really is a comprehensive program of a lot of different areas that we try to look at, because one area alone isn't going to get us to where we need to be. one of our primary focuses in texas, and along with all of the other states is to ultimately reduce they fatalities and serious injury crashes, because it doesn't matter whether it's one life or 100, we don't want to lose one.

so every life that we can save is a victory from our perspective. >> that 70% number is that a national number or texas number? >> we've looked at it from a texas perspective. it works for texas, but i've also seen some things that have been used on a broader perspective as we have. >> one last question, ms. farrow, i think i have in my notes somewhere, and i don't see it in front of me right now, there's no differentiation in the statistics of truck-relate ed accidents whether the trucker was at fault -- it's not broken, when you use that big number, that's just a number of total accidents involving a commercial truck. is that correct? >> senator blunt, that's correct, it's an aggregate crash numbers. >> do you have any that verifies the major's sense that it's more than the 70% number? >> the clearest data set was

through the large analysis about 8 to 10 years ago, so it's not as current as we would like it to be, and i -- i believe -- i'll follow up for the record that that it was 35% attributable to the professional driver in fatalities, and closer to 45% to 50% in all crashes. so 35 to 40 on fatalities, and higher attributable in injury and tow-away crashes. >> i'm out of time. >> we'll come back to you. thank you. senator booker? >> i just first want to thank the chairman and ranking member, two gentlemen that have really pragmatic constructive clarity of thought, and i appreciate your leadership and how you're

addressing, what is the end, which is to keep our highways safe. if i can quickly just turn again to hours of service. first of all mr. osieki, i really appreciate your testimony. you had a lot of constructive database -- when i was mayor i had in god we trust, i'm a man of faith, but everybody else bring me data. when it comes to safety initiatives t. versus the tirny of yore. i would have the liberation of the tend, dumonde. i know these were brought about through -- when i look through the data and the studies, and there's so much sound evidence that you all went through, and is the 20,000 comments, through all that, but there's a very pointed assertion that's been put on the table if we persist with these rules, it's going to

force more people into the daytime traffic, thus making it more congested, thus creating more crashes. all i'm asking very objectively, is there any data yet to make that statement or that assertion or that possibility true? >> sir, there's been no data presented to us that demonstrates that fact, nor does anything in the rule limit the ability of the industry to set its schedules as it seems necessary to satisfy the demands of its contests. >> so our ception supports what you would do, leave the provisions in effect, but conduct the study.

>> what are you actually studies to see if there's any subtans? >> and when they were to come back on the highway, is that it only affects maybe the 15%. >> that's where i want to jump in. but there's been a tremendous decline of income for drivers. this was a solid middle-class job, well compensated drivers. i know from truck drivers, grueling hours they were putting in.

and we're praying folks very low salaries, and they men and women push themselves in order to make enough money they push themselves in order to make ends meet. it's no wonder that a recent study that was cited found an astoning 65% supported they sometimes feel drouy. i believe we need to start compensating these folks in a way that they can make ends meet without pushing themselves can

you provide me any insight about the issue of driver's wajs and if so, in your opinion, what steps can we do to address this compensation issue? >> i think one of the key components, as far as the detention time, when i was working for a private carrier, we had a program where you picked up your freight and you picked it up for a dollar a thousand. and i can also add to that, senator, when i went to mork from a private carrier, i got a 26,000 race that day. so there's quite a different in the union and nonunion sector. i think that the detention time and wages are a key component in getting qualified candidates and

good experienced drivers that will not drift in and out of industry. >> so it may make people pushing fatigue less? higher pay might make this idea that drivers have to push further to make enough money to support their families? >> absolutely, sir. it would redulles the push factor that you're talking about to make the ends meeting. if the wages were higher, you wouldn't have -- i think to kelly ayotte. >> i was told by my staff -- -- that i'm going to yield to senator fisher, my dear friend and give you the chairpersonship as well -- no, snow blumenthal is back.

i know senator fisher is eager to go. >> i appreciate your graciousness in yielding just as i was coming in, and appreciate your patience with the quick visit i had to make with someone who came. senator fisher. >> mr. chairman i hope you also heard that i decline the chairmanship. >> i noticed the emerging around arky. >> as a member of the nebraska legislature, i serve as chairman of the community indication and telecommunication commutee. every year we would have hearings on safety issues. those were always very emotional hearings. we would have the families of accident victims there, and so i just would like to recognize those families and express my condolences to you.

i also want to thank our drivers and truckers. everyone is looking for ways to make our roads safer. that's the purpose here, and i think we're all united in that purpose, as we do move forward in looking to make our highway safer. after a recent hearing at which secretary packs testified, i submitted a record, and unfortunately the answer i received was less responsive than i was hoping for, so i'm going to try again, and maybe you can clear some things up for us. and also what do you have to

study and evaluate the safety impacts of that additional daytime driving that many of us believe is a result of those restart rules. >> senator, thank you for gives us a chance to answer the question. i appreciate the opportunity we incorporated, analyzed and assessed an extensive body of data, as well as a more recent survey. so in the body of research on which we based the heart of this rule, which is the restart provision is this whole concept of competentively long work hours and their impact on a

driver's functions, and thus the ability to operate safely. this is a full set of research i will be happy to provide going forward, the fifth is a very specific contract. and the impacts of the conditions of operating heavy-duty vehicles, and core identifying best data sources, new data sources, new mechanisms for data collection, as well as existing resources that we might not have known to tap into. there's a third component. to say we all have core questions we want to know about this rule. there's a very robust study proposed in the senator collins' amendment that mrs. claybrook indicated as best exercise with

the current rule in place. but we also see that there are many sources the data that the industry has, and we are encouraged that the industry may be interested in shares, which is really aggregated on-board fleet data, which gives us a sense of -- and compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. >> which i believe mr. osieki is recommending as well. you messagesed, sir, a number of -- which as i said we're all trying to do here. if you could elaborate on those, you looked like you wanted to respond to senator booker when he was asking questions of other witnesses with regard to the

daytime hours, so i will give you an opportunity to respond to that as well. in terms of senator booker's questions about 14i69ing to the daytime hour, a study commonly known as the restart study issued? ian wear of this year i would point the committee to figures 5 and 6, but they demonstrate that the two or more night sleepers under the restart compared to the one-night sleepers, it demonstrates those two charts that the truck traffic is more distributed through the daytime hours. so we have also provided some as to information to the administration taking a look at that. now, with respect to the first question, and there are a lot of ways to answer that. i'll more recently and very

recently the on-board camera systems that are not designed to view the truck driver in a negative way. it's designed to capture the environment of what's going on in near crashes and crash events to determine what happened whether to -- those are improving safety. there's demonstrated evidence that those systems work. >> thank you very much. thank you plrks chair. >> thank you, senator fisher. >> i wanted to ask you, mr. osieki, i really appreciate the hard work that our truck drivers do.

a lot of them own their own businesses, independent operators as well that are working pretty hard it's an important job, highly competitive, and frankly one of the concerns they have raised with me is it's becoming more and more costly to own your own business and be a smaller operator in this context with not only some of the things that are being issued that we're talking about today, but also some of the new technology that's being required. wouldn't you agree it's harder for the smaller operators in this context? >> i think it is, when there are mandated technologies, i think that's the case. much of what i was talking about is voluntarily adopted technologies. folks who have worked around for

years, knows it takes many, many years, in fact decades, when you implement a new mandated technology, it lit really takes two, three, sometimes four decades for the entire fleet to turn over. so incentives to drive voluntarily options is a way to do that. we do support the mandatory logging devices. there may be differences in the industry on that point, but the cost is coming down on those. >> administrator, i know you are leaving soon, so i appreciate your work here. based on the fmcsa study that essentially this -- there was evident that more trucks, larger trucks would be on the road during the daytime hours.

because of the new hours of service rules. do you dispute that? >> i spoke to the logic that we used to analyze what that might be. looking at the 15% impact and identifying that by virtue of the logical analysis about 250,000 -- >> so by logic, we're going to have more large trucks on the road during the daytime. the follow-up point is it's barely 250,000 -- >> have we fully analyzed -- as i understand it, we have not fully analyzed, and that's one of the purposes of the coal united states study is to have a full analysis of the impact on daytime hours. as you and i have talked about in the past, we already do have evidence that more accidents occur during the daytime hours because of the congestion that is natural during the daytime

hours in and of itself. i know the chairman and others have said that the study has been robust, it's been scientific, but it strikes me we haven't asked a fundamental question that is important in terms of people's safety which is -- if we change the restart rules in the way that they've been proposed, how many more trucks will be on the road during those daytime hours? what will be the safety impact of having those trucks, more of them on the road during the daytime hours? and to delay the rule while we understand that question to me seems logical, because if we know there's more congestion during the daytime and more likely evidence that there are more accidents during that period, wouldn't we want to know before we go forward with this exactly what the public safety impact is about the added truck traffic during that period?

it's important to have that science and data before we complement a significant rule that could have the unintended consequence of creating more public safety issues. so that's where the collins report is coming from. i fully support it. i think it makes logical sense, and the feedback that i've heard from this rule, as we've talked about before, i know that the collins amendment will also analyze the economic impacts of this rule, but i know we've heard a lot of discussion today about why don't we just go forward with the rule? well, this is a fundamental question that we should have answered, it seems to me, for the american people before we go forward with a pretty significant rule change. >> if i might comment, just for purposes of clarification, the final rule was issued in december of 2011 and went into

effect a year ago. >> right. i want to correct. i don't know why we went forward with a rule without having those questions answered. it seems to me that the collins amendment from having received the feedback of the concerns that people have that are legitimate concerns strikes the right balance, because it suspends the rule until we know the answer to that very important question of how much more daytime traffic, how much -- what would be the impact in terms of potential accident during the daytime to me the fact we issued this rule before we had the clear answers to those very important question is something that shouldn't have happened. what the coal, amendment does is restart where we should be until we have those answers. if the answers are there isn't a public safety impact, then you certainly are in a position

where the rule can be reissued. >> and thank you for clarifying. there is a public saved impact of rolling back this rule. the rule today that's in place today based on the scientific evidence, based on analysis, based on enormous amount of public input is projected -- is currently expected to be saving lives, reducing crashes. that's based on the health benefits, the analysis through the sleep lab studies, and the field study that dave osieki mentioned was references patterns prior to july of 2013, as congress mandated we analyze. >> i know my typhoon is um, when you were last before this committee and i asked you about the field study in particular, and the number of drivers that are analyzed as i understand it, my recollection is it was 21 or

so. you can tell me, 106 drivers. >> 106, yes. so we think about the number of drivers on the road across this country, 106 drivers over a 21-day period, correct? >> that's correct. >> i'm doing this from the top of my head, but that's not that many when you think about how many drivers are on the road, but most importantly what i wanted to point out, when you were last before this hearing you had agreed and said to me when they had this discuss about your study that your agency was constrained from doing the broader naturalistic analysis that they are going to be doing going forward. >> that's right. >> so if you were constrained in doing that kind of analysis, i think one agreement is the collins study as proposed is confide comprehensive. this would allow us to have this information to understand the full impact of particularly the

daytime travel, and to really suspend what i think is a dramatic -- i know from my constituents -- i've had said before not only have i heard from truck drivers, but i've heard in wholesalers of groceries that this is going to cost them millions and millions, and their concern it would add to the impact of potential safety concerns during the day, that we need to understand these answers. so i want to just express that i appreciate senator collins' leadership on this. i think her amendment makes sense, and it's unfortunate we didn't have this information before the rule was actually issued and implemented. >> just to clarify, the rule we've been discussing has been in effect for one year. >> that's correct ands there are studies under way about the

effectiveness. >> that's correct. >> and the collins amendment insofar as it requires additional study would produce perhaps additional data, but it goes beyond the study to constitutionally roll back the rule? >> there are efforts under way, including meetings with stakeholders to identify the data sources to answer the questions. again which i think senator ayotte outlined moving forward. we have a fatigue research and analysis body of work being done. the full intent is to take advantage of aggregate data to analyze the day-to-day impact. >> my understanding is you'll be receiving data from the states as well that can be used in this work? >> we routinely through our motor carrier assistance grant system and crash reporting, violations reporting, roadside

inspection work, collect data and use that to analyze the effects of our work, that's correct. >> so it sounds like there is a very robust intensive active energetic effort under way to assess the effectiveness of the rules while they were in effect now? >> that's absolutely correct, mr. chairman. >> mr. scott? senator scott. sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you panelists for being part of such an important meeting. frankly i will tell you that over -- as i was watching you all on tv, this was a long robust conversation on a number of topic, hours of service being one priority, over the last couple years i've had the opportunity to meet with the a.t. president mr. byrd from my hometown, about the safety issues, and i do believe we find ourselves in a position where

we've seen significant progress over the last several years and certainly look forward to seeing more progress made, as we know it's important to talk about saving lives, and that really is job number one. i do have a couple questions. i spent too much time in the insurance industry, to tell you the truth, nearly 25 years. i'm only 30 years old, so since i was 5 years old -- it wasn't that funny, but the last couple decades it's been my professional life, owning an insurance agency. i was interested in the correlation, perhaps between higher limits and fewer accidents than if in fact the rulemaking that we see coming forward speaks to any real evidence of that fact i understand currently more than 99% of commercial accidents are easily covered under the current

insurance requirements, yet you have initiated a new rulemaking to raise thinks limits. will your rulemaking include any kind of assessment of the financial impact how do you feel raising truck insurance limits would help full philadelphia the agency's mission. my question comes really from limited exposure, everyday family cars and only about 10% or 12% of my time was spent on commercial insurance, commercial vehicles, so not a lot of exposure there, but i was unaware of any specific studies that created a correlation from increasing the limits of liability and reducing the fatalitie

fatalities, the crashes, or the incidents, frankly. i know as a small business eastern who had employees when the rulemaking and/order legislative, regulatory environment increases the thresholds, it requires more money out of my pocket, so my question is, was there in analysis on the impact that the rulemaking would have on small businesses or big overall? >> the first step actually will be just what you're describing, the analysis component. with regards to financial responsibility limits for -- or i should say minimums for the commercial vehicle industry, truck and bus, those limits -- the minimums were set by congress 30 years ago and prevail today. the minimum is still $750,000 for a trucking company. it goes up depending on if you're carrying passengerer, or if you're carrying hazardous materials, but again the minimum

is $750,000 for your basic trucking provider. when congress introduced those minimums, it was done in the context of deregulation and with an expressed appreciation for the impact that risk-based insuring might have on safety behavior from their customers. right? in other words, if you minimize risk you're likely to be a good covered, and i think you probably practiced the same on the private sired. in those 30 years there's been no change on those minimum levels. at the same time the premium rates have not changed either. that actually softened a bit. consumer price index, medical price endetection, all those components have gone up significantly. through map 21, congress directed the agency to record back to congress on the michelle mum levels of insurance, if they were adequate and then look every four years at the minimums, starting with the

report you just referenced. in our analysis, we recognized that for all the factors i just identified, it is appropriate for the agency at this time to press forward on an anticipated or a -- call it an anprn, a something proposed rulemaking advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, so we can ask the stakeholders from the industry and victims side to weigh in and provide us data and information to determine what those next steps should be. the first step will be an anprm within the next 30, 60 days. >> as we analyze the information on risk versus reward, so we're

talking about carrots and sticks. sticks if you raise thresholds, the companies will become more prudent and more responsible, but my assumption is that's already happening, but i would love to hear your perspective on the impact of higher limits on, a, the business system itself and b, whether or not that would be an impediment to more incidents? >>. >> thank you, senator. the stud,did indeed highlight that 99.9% of the crashes and the costs of those crashes for which trucks were responsible for, the 30% that the major highlighted earlier, are covered under the existing limits. so 99.9%, so there's really 0.1% not covered.

so the question becomes what's our mission? raising the limits? is there a link to safety? i will tell you there's almost a void of research that links minimum insurance limits to safety outcomes. to the part of your question about business impacts and the market, the market will clearly be impacted dramatically if the limits are upped dramatically. if it goes from 750 to a million, maybe not so much, but some are talking about a 750,000 ming mum to perhaps 4 million or even higher. at the change the number of players in the marketplace, so it becomes a very difficult question for the industry to deal with, particularly if there's no link to improved safety outcomes. there's more to be said on that, but i guess we're heartened by the fact the first step is a

advanced notice of proposed rulemaking as opposed to a proposed rule. on the issue of traffic enforcement activities versus roadside inspections and what will move us in the right direction. what do you feel will be most effective. ed lifeblood of our economy is in those vehicles. at the same time we're looking for ways to reduce karkts and catastrophic occurrences in an attempt to save more lives. help me see a path forward it's federal dollars, and in terms of the traffic enforcement activity, the mix, the motor

carrier assistance program is about $100 million per year federal state grant program. now there's a driver component. that's typically paperwork, license and so forth. so it is a driver piece, so let me be clear, but in terms of the actual benefit, traffic enforcement is at least four times more effective. it's stopping a commercial driver to speeding, unsafe lane change, those type of unsafe behaviors. if that's 4 1/2 times more effective than roadside vehicle inspections, why are we spending 90% of our dollars on roadside inspections. it should be a different balance. i'm not here to tell you what the balance should be, but we believe it could be balanced

more towards the more effective countermeasure. >> thank you. i appreciate the time. i have a few follow-up questions. first of all, i was surprised toss in your testimony, ms. farrow, there is no test now for sleep apnea. is that correct? >> there's no requirement that a driver be tested for sleep apnea. >> shouldn't there be one? >> the process of assessing a driver's qualifications -- medical qualifications for holding a cdl is something we call a d.o.t. physical. over the years the agency working with our medical review board and expert panel, medical panels that they have appointed or i should say asked for

feedback from, we have consistently identified key elements within the guidance to be looking at when they're -- when a -- that includes where else practice tore conditions and brings me back to obstructive sleep apnea. if in that medical examiner's line of practice their protocols help them identify that that driver warrants further screening, those medical examiners and individual will likely refer for further screening. it is not a requirement today. the requirement is that the medical examiner ensure that the driver meets the qualifications to be safe and alert behind the wheel. >> you have given my a full answer, but i'm asking you whether it could be required, frankly i would think it's kind of basic. i'm saying it as a layman, not

as an expert. i would be interested in other expert views, but given the history of some crashes and those include railroad crashes, i would think it should be part of whatever medical certificate is required. >> our medical review board and saved advisory committee would recommend the same. consequently we will be adhering to a congressional man dade. we will be taking the next steps to develop a rulemaking on sleep apnea, starting with a notice that asks a series of questions to gather additional data and assess whether a rule making is the right step, but it can only be done through rule making. >> do any of our witnesses disagree with the proposition that sleep apnea ought to be tested before someone is permitted to driver commercially?

>> the record will show there is no disagreement. let me ask, because i think you have made some good points about speed limits and logging devices, we don't have a representative of the national traffic safety association been here, but has there been a response? i would agree there ought to be. >> yes, mr. chairman nhtsa responded. they said they would go forward with the rule making. that was originally anticipated to occur in 2012, and unfortunately it has not yet southbound proposed. to be fair it's our understanding that it's being worked on and in conjunction with fmcsa, i believe.

so it is moving. it's i think in our view moving at a snail's pace and speed is the biggest factor to car and truck crashes. if we want to make a difference,ist lights the old gentleman, why do you rob banks? because that's the money is. you go to where the big numbers are. >> well, i appreciate your point and i might add that one of nigh grievances about federal agent and federal rulemaking is it has been too laggard, too lengthy in time, and that pertains to a variety of federal agencies and federal rulemaking, so i appreciate you raising that point. a i might ask you also, since we're on the subject of rulemaking, perhaps you can tell us more about electronic logging devices. >> certainly.

the electronic logging devices is, as it sounds, it's a technology that allows truck drivers to electronically capture their hours of service. they very accurate for driving time limits. there is still a driver input or manual input into the device for when they're working but not driving, but overall they are effective at what they do. initially they were costly. they were in the, you know, 1,000 to 1500 range. they are coming down in price, which is good, and as i testified, you know, we prefer to see a final regulation yesterday, and with an implementation date. it's going to take some time. it will still be at least three to four years before that man dade kicks in, and we would -- the voluntary adoptions will slow down the closer we get perhaps change in performance -- >> that's a matter of making sure whatever the rules are, are enforced effectively and

consistently? >> yes, sir. >> major palmer, i think el spoke very well to this point, but i want to make sure i understand it. you made the point about area yags in rules and consistency and reliability in being very important to enforcement and as a law enforcer myself before i came here for quite a few years, that point hit home for me. not rolling back or retracting rules already in effect, while their effectiveness is under study, in case they might have to be reimposed again, but leaving them in effect so they can continue to be in force, so that folks on the highways could continue to rely on them even as their effectiveness is studied.

am i interpreting correctly your view? >> yes, sir, mr. chairman. that is what we want. what we would prefer is we would prefer not to have to deal with retraining and readjusting to something that could be temporary. it's not our as you know, it's our job to enforce what's in place. all we are asking is to maintain the rule that has been in effect for a year until those studies are completed. that way, whatever changes are going to be made can be made at one time. >> that's completes my questions. >> thank you, chairman. on the other side of that one year, of course, we find out a year from now it puts more people on a highway at a time when the highway is already clogged up, that's another year

of that. but we'll see how this all works out. clearly this is going to be dealt with by the house and senate in the senate appropriations bill. we'll see if it stays there. mr. osieki, my understanding is just a normal car or truck with a sync system, i was talking to an insurance person about this, you can keck that system to mare ton tore system and based on your driving behavior, they'll give you a better rate. i'm assuming that a sync system -- someone can tell if i'm starting or stopping too fast or if i'm driving too fast.

>> many fleets have that today, senator. the safety manager. safety director at their computer get real-time alerts with hard braking events, perhaps steering out of the context events. they can directly intervene with the driver through a message or if not a message to stop, with a message to intervene and pull over. that's a benefit, and it's being used fairly widely. >> that was another question. you mentionside cost, but this is from the independent over operator, that's always been their concern that they couldn't quite afford to complete at that left of equipment, but i see that's got quite a bit less expensive? >> it's kind of like the cell phone, and the real cost is over

the air, the monthly charge? that scenario is played out in trucking as well. those are still real costs. >> real costs to an operator -- >> yes, they are, sir. >> that would explain some of that i reluctance, i'm a good driver, why do i have to have a log and system, but i'm of the view that you are. if there's a way to monitor this, liability is something that nobody should want to run to embrace. i want to do everything you can to not have that liability. ms. ferro. has it decreased? >> up through 2009. 2009 was the lower year on record. >> do you have a reason for that? do you know why that would be the case? they would have decreased for

six or seven years? on our roadways and let me preface that by saying that's part and parcel why we are working together today to get better data that incorporates fleet management data so we can better analyze why crashes are happening and the net effect of measures that have been taken. at the end of the day, economic growth and the intensity of pressure on the industry to deliver and the growing traffic volumes have contributed to those increasing crash rates. >> does traffic volume become a factor in trying to figure out your regulations for drivers, deliveries and other things if traffic volume is one of the big concerns here? >> how the vehicles are being

operated in the traffic is at the source of our concern. how the driver is behaving, how the company is managing the equipment, and the driver, and the other demands in the supply chain that are putting pressures on that driver. a real compounding factor in driver pressure and stress is detention time. we touched on a little bit with regard to compensation, but at the end of the day, that time that a driver is sitting is unpaid time and it's putting pressure on that driver to complete the delivery of that load, and until we can address this deteng time issue, if it's unpaid by the shipping industry, if it's unpaid by the employer, then it's free to everybody and they don't care to tighten it up. so the impacts of that also absolutely as our economy grows and detention time grows, those kind of things do impact a driver's ability to be safe because they are pressing and legal physical limits to get

that load completed, to get on to their next destination. >> do you have a sense of what the 2013 numbers are going to look like? terms of fatalities? >> in terms of fatality? we are -- we are watching them closely. >> well, you will have those numbers. you are now going back and trying to analyze them over the last six months? >> well, and we are trag to get to the point where it is a robust data set. traditionally, the data, the crash data both fatal injury and tow away crash da that that that we gather and reported through the states takes 20 to 24 months before we are satisfied that we got 100% of the crash data in. i have been fairly criticized by my staff in the past by getting out of the box too early on some of the data because it does change over time, so we are watching. we are looking at the first six

months of the transition between december and july of last year and watching closely as to when we will be close to 100% of the crash data from the states which we expect will be at least another six months, just for that particular period. and i will be pleased to report back -- well, i apologize, i won't be here, but i know the agency will be very committed to being reporting back as we continue to monitor that. >> now, easy for you to say, right, since you are -- >> bitter sweet, i might add. >> exactly. i'm sure that's right. one last line of questions, just on every transportation company has to do drug and alcohol testing. that's pretty broadly based, i believe, 50% within a course of a year, do 50% of their drivers have to be tested? >> that's correct. 50% of their drivers need to be tested for drugs and alcohol is 10th randomlyized. >> and if they have results that

are positive, there's some point where that number goes down to 25%, if it's less than 1% in the course -- over two years, i believe it is? >> yes, i think you are speaking to the authority of the agency. if the overall rate of positive testing is significantly below that threshold that you identified, that the random population size can be reduced, and so after two years of surveys, we are identifying that it's lower. it has continued to come down or stayed low. i want to say it's below a 1% threshold for testing positive, so the agency is assessing all the different components of what it would mean if in fact we lowered the random population from 50 to 25%, but those are factors that are under review today, so stwob premature for me to comment beyond that, the fact that the discussion is under way. >> mr. oseki, anything you want

to say about that? >> senator, the trucking industry has tried really hard to get its drug testing rate below 5%. 2011, that was the first year in which our industry dropped below that magic thresh thoeled is% 1%. 2012, we don't know the data. that brings into question if all the other modes, if faa, federal railroad, transit, if they have already reduced their industry's random population from 50% to 25%, why wouldn't the trucking industry be in that same category, particularly since this was set up as an incentive-based program many years ago? we've essentially met the incentive as i understand it, and we're not being rewarded. >> you mean the incentive that was in the initial incentive package that if you can keep

below 1% for two years, you have to do fewer samples but you still have to report. >> yes, sir, that's right. >> it does seem to me you can't go back -- if you change the incentive after you go through the process, then you can't expect the process to be quite as cooperative the secretary time. we're evaluating what the new incentive should be or whether we're evaluating facts are is something i'm interested in, and i'll let you respond now or for the record on that either one. >> thank you, senator. i will respond for the record, but i do want to reinforce we are looking at all of those questions today, as mr. oseiki indicated, we haven't released the final number. this is a very serious topic and we're taking all factors into consideration. we'll follow up more clearly on the record. >> it should be.

if you are going to set an incentive for the industry to meet and here's the incentive that you are trying achieve, you can't then go back later and say, okay, well, you met the snef incentive, the requirements, but we don't think that's the right reward for -- they are still going to have to report, the question is how many people they have to check and if it goes back up, i assume it work the other way. thank you. >> thank you, for those excellent questions. i want to thank the panel. before we close, there were a couple of issues that i was going to ask ms. claybrooke whether you had any kind of closing comments on some of the issues that were just raised. . thank you very much, mr. chairman. i like to mention that there were no studies that supported the old restart provision and so now there's concern that there are no studies that have been --

have evaluated the change that senator collins is trying to remove, and in fact, she wants to study it but if you remove those provisions, they are not going to be able to be studies, so it's very hard to evaluate what kind of change is going to occur if you don't have the changes in place to study so that's the reason that we support your co-sponsorship of the booker amendment that says let's leave them in place. they have been in effect for a year. it's very complicated to change them at this moment because the industry has started to implement them. let's study them now even further. what we do have scientific data about very clearly is a lot of stud dids done on the hours of service, night time shifts, daytime shifts and the importance of getting nighttime sleep. there's no questions about that, as far as i know.

those studies are row did you say and substantial. in our view, the restart should be eliminated. we think the whole restart concept of allowing people to restart their hours with only a weekend -- part of a week off after driving 70 hours a week is much too little. further i would say that the real problem here and it goes to senator booker's concern is that the pay that the drivers are getting. they are not paid overtime. they work 11 hours a day. they don't get paid overtime. they have an incentive to drive as fast as they possibly can so they do get paid for their miles, because they are paid on the basis of the number of miles that they travel. and so the whole system is kaflooie if i could say it that way. it has the incentive to drive faster and it doesn't protect

the drivers. in addition, the whole issue that ms. farrow raised of having to wait for your freight to be loaded and unloaded, which is not paid time, they can be required to wait three hours, so you are talking about 11 hours of drivers and three hours of waiting and ten hours to sleep and they start that process all over again and up to 70 hours a week of work and they get only 34 hours off. that's inhumane in our view. that's why there's low pays and advantages taken of the drivers. i would also comment briefly on the issue of 70% of the truck crashes are caused by the car drivers. the fact is that 96% of the time the car drivers are dead and dead men don't talk. so when the police come to investigate the crash, naturally the truck driver is going to say it wasn't my fault and they want

to retain their jobs and we understand that. but the people who were involved in that crash on the other side, the car drivers, they are not there to comment or explain and the police do not have the time to do a full-fledged investigation. they are moving traffic, sometimes traffic is backed up for hours as a result of these truck crashes, and so the studies that have been done on this, i think, have been inadequate and minimal and i don't know that i think that you agree with that. >> that's fair. minimal. >> i think that number is not a number should be used. i would like to say that i agree with the ata about having more technology in vehicles, but that doesn't in any way in my view under mine the need to correct the hours of service rules. there are two different issues. they are both really important. we completely support technology improvements, but i will say that the technology improvements are costly for the smaller independent truckers and they

don't like them and they oppose them. the final thing i would like to comment on, if you don't mind for one more minute is the insurance. the insurance number of $750,000 is totally inadequate for a major truck crash and insurance is designed to protect the people who are harmed. it's not designed necessarily to assure that there's going to be more safety. those are others thags this can be done to do that. as we discussed at this hearing. but insurance should be at least brought up to inflation numbers which would bring it up to several millions, at least. one of the problems is the big truck companies do have more insurance which is great. small truck companies don't. if you happen to get by small truck companies, you don't get the compensation you deserve. with mexican trucks come into play, they only have to meet our rules which is $750,000, and you will never get more than that if

there's a major truck crash caused by a mexican truck. i think the rules should be change and the minimum insurance level should be substantially increased to several millions, four or five million dollars. >> thank you. we're going to allow the record to remain open. i know some of our witnesses may want to respond to points that have been made to other members of the panel and we're going to keep the record open for a week? i'm sorry, two weeks. whew! two weeks. the judiciary committee is a week. but i guess lawyers can talk quicker or write quicker or maybe they don't have as much to say. that's not true. definitely. so thank you very much. this has been an excellent panel. i want to thank my colleagues for their really excellent participation, their differing points of view on this panel and

among us as colleagues but i think what we have in common is the goal of increasing safety on our roads and we've explored some areas where i think we have very definitely common ground and where the federal government can play a more constructive role. thank you so much. and i look forward to working with every one of our members of the panel in exploring and advancing these areas. thank you. hearing is adjourned.

>> it's the last week for congress before the august recess starts, and both chambers are in session today. earlier this afternoon, the senate confirmed robert mcdonnell to be the next veterans affairs secretary by a 97-0 vote. senators are expected to also hold a final passage vote on highway and transportation programs later today. follow the senate live on c span 2. earlier today, secretary of state john kerry and ukrainian foreign minister behalf lpavlo spoke today. here's more now.

>> a cease-fire under the egyptian formula of no preconditions, cessation of hostilities, negotiations to take place in cairo, that is exactly what we have been talking about, no variation, no deviation. we've been in touch with the egyptians. we've honored the egyptian concept. if there is a negotiation, it would be in cairo. it would be entirely without preconditions and it would not prejudice israel's ability to defend itself. so i think there's a little energy being expended here unnecessarily. and i do think we will continue to work with our close friend and ally and i'm not going to worry about personal attacks. i think that president obama has it right, and the international community has it right when we say that it is more appropriate to try to resolve the underlying issues at a negotiating table

than to continue a tit for tat of violence that will invite more violence and perhaps a greater downward spiral which would be much more difficult to recover from. >> do you think it's still possible to get a cease-fire after -- >> well, that depends entirely on the parties at this point. andrea, i mean, you know, we're trying to very carefully without, as i said, diminishing israel's legitimate right to defend itself against tunnels and rockets, but to find a way to see if we can spare the people of israel as well as palestinians, the possibilities of at any moment something going terribly wrong when one of those rockets hits a major school in israel or a major population center, lots of people die. the effort here is to find whether or not -- i can't vouch for it and president obama can't

vouch for it, but we know that we owe it to everybody to try to see if you can find that way. if after you get to a table it proves that there is absolute reluctance to honor basic defensive needs of israel to deal with the rockets, to deal with the tunnels, to deal with other things, then at least you know you've made that effort to try to spare lives and to find a legitimate way forward. that's our job, to try to do that, and we think we're doing it in a way that completely reinforces israel's rights. you know, i've spent 29 years in the united states senate and 100% voting record pro-israel, and i will not take a second seat to anybody in my friendship or my devotion to the protection of the state of israel, but i also believe as somebody who has been to war that it is better to

try to find a way if you can to solve these problems before you get dragged into something that you can't stop, and it seems to me that this is a reasonable effort fully protecting israel's rights, fully protecting israel's interests, and prime minister netanyahu himself said to me, can you try to get a humanitarian cease fire for this period of time? and if it weren't for his commitment to it, obviously the president of the united states and i would not be trying to make this effort. now, either i take his commitment at face value or someone is playing a different game here, and i hope that's not the fact. >> a portion of secretary kerry's remarks from earlier today at the state department. you can see his entire comments later in the schedule or anytime online. go to cspan.org.

american artifacts, george washington university, the gulf of tonkin in vietnam. american artifacts and watch more american horse tv next week. while congress is in recess, american history tv will be in prime time 8:00 p.m. eastern, featuring events from watergate on its 40th anniversary. american history tv on c span 3. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c span and senate on c span 3, here we complement the coverage by showing the most recent hearing and public affairs events and then on weekends, c span is home to american history tv.

visiting battle ~fields and american art i tacts during sites to reveal what artifacts tell us about america's past. the presidency, looking at the policy and legacies of our commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past. c span 3, created by the cable industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> next a look at the violence in iraq and the threat of the islamic state of iraq and satisfactory, also known as isis held by the senate foreign relations committee. this is two hours.

good morning. this hearing will come to order. today we folk ous on iraq and u.s. policy options, but to fully examine the crisis in iraq we must acknowledge the broader context of developments across the region. earlier this year i heard a hearing on the spillover of the syria conflict to examine the impli implications of continued violence in syria and how it would impact the stability and security of neighboring countries. now we are seeing the very dangerous results of that spillover. with the advancement of isis, the increase in sectarian violence, underscored by the discuss solution of any real border between iraq and syria and the designation of isis of a caliphate across syria and iraq

that is threatening to create a security vacuum in the heart of the middle east. while the today's hearing will while the today's hearing will not focus specifically on the regional threat posed by isis or on u.s. syria policy, i want to take this opportunity to restate my long held position that we must enhance our support to the moderate syrian opposition. the only ones willing to challenge isis and other al qaeda affiliates in syria. it seems to me that at the end of the day supporting moderate forces must be one pillar of a broader u.s. policy in the region. no one should be surprised that iraq is the victim of this spillover. but we should be extremely concerned by the rapid expansion of isis and alarmed by iran's clear involvement in iraq. and we should be dismayed by the convenient alignment of interests in response to recent developments. especially in iraq. at its core, this alignment is about self-preservation of rogue

actors that seek to maintain power by destabilizing others and keeping weak governments susceptible to malign influence. in my view, iraq does not have to proceed down this path and it is up to iraq's leaders to chart a different course for their country. i'm deeply disappointed that after years of u.s. investment and time and resources, the loss of thousands of american lives, and the commitment of billions of dollars to support iraq's political development and the creation of a responsible, capable iraqi security force, that they deserted the communities they were responsible for protecting, abandoned u.s. military equipment and fled from isis fighters. at the same time, isis' expansion across iraq and its reception by iraq sunni communities and tribes would not have been possible except for the accumulation of years of destructive sectarian, corrupt policies by the central government in baghdad. iraq has the potential to be an

economically prosperous, diverse and politically representative model for others in the region. but iraqi leaders have focused on their own sectarian and ethnic interests for too long at the expense of building an iraq for all iraqis. the time is now for iraq's elected leaders to form a national unity government, that is truly representative. i applaud the recent progress in nominating a speaker and two deputy speakers for iraq's parliament, and today's promising news that a president has been named. i encourage iraq's leaders to continue this critical work and finalize the government with leaders committed to leading an iraq for all iraqis. while iraq's leaders continue negotiations to form the next government, the department of defense has completed the assessment of iraqi security forces. i look forward to hearing from our administration witness on the findings and recommendations provided by u.s. advisers and plans going forward to counter the threat from isis and congress' role in this effort.

let me take a moment to highlight the particularly dangerous situation of minority communities in iraq and particularly iraqi christians. i recently joined senator stabenow in a meeting with archbishop bashar water from the diocese of erbil. his description of the terror that isis inflicted in iraqi christian communities is truly horrifying and i hope our witnesses today will share with us steps the administration is taking to address the urgent and unique situation of iraqi christians. senator stabenow has asked i submit several letters for the record, which i will do without objection, regarding the plot of iraqi christians and i look forward to working with her further on this critical issue. i also want to acknowledge that the iraqi ambassador to the united states, ambassador felipe, is in attendance today and we welcome him here. i received a letter from the ambassador following our meeting a few weeks ago, asking that congress and the administration make the u.s. commitment to iraq clear by providing support and

assistance to turn the tide against isis, if the iraqi government takes steps to broaden its political base and accelerate the formation of the government. this letter to the congressional record. and i hope to hear from our administration witnesses today, whether or not they believe iraqi leaders are capable or able, i should say, to form a more representative government. what is required to turn the tide against isis and if there is a new national unity government in baghdad, what should we do to demonstrate support. with that, senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our witnesses for being here. and iraq seems to be disintegrating as terrorist organization isis now controls mosul, iraq's second largest city, fallujah and much of ramadi, parts of baja, tikrit.

though significantly outnumbered, isis managed to overwhelm entire divisions of the iraqi army, many of whom removed their uniforms and ran. isis also has claimed credit for a recent string of bombings in baghdad, as responsible for systemic persecution of christians. thousands of whom are being forced to flee their homes under penalty of death. they don't convert and pay a tax. the report that last month was the deadliest in iraq since 2008, with 2400 iraqis killed, two-thirds of which were civilians. for those of us who were here during the debate over the hard won gains of the surge this is hardly an outcome that would have been imagined back then.

and though our intelligence picture in iraq is woefully inadequate, the situation should not surprise us for two reasons. the crisis is connected to the disaster in syria, which our country has largely ignored. isis militants have long enjoyed freedom of movement across the porous border in anbar providence and had been in control of fallujah and key parts of ramadi for months prior to the takeover of mosul. since 2009, maliki has systematically shredded an politicized the entire structure of the iraqi security forces, replacing competent commanders with incompetent yet loyal commanders and creating a more sectarian institution that scares the average iraqi as much as isis. despite the connection to syria, it is important to note that this is not just an invasion from foreign fighters.

isis simply cannot hold this much territory in iraq while maintaining operations in syria without help on the ground. whether we can look -- rather we can look at this as a civil and sectarian war being exacerbated and exploited by a growing terrorist threat. this is yet another signal of how badly prime minister maliki has alienated the sunni population. even if maliki leaves, without political reconciliation among iraq's key communities, no amount of military support can make a difference. but on the other hand, if we do not help iraqi government survive and hold territory now, there is a possibility we will not be discussing political reconciliation in a few months because the country could break apart. today in this hearing i hope we can confront this dilemma head on. i hope we can start to identify the right mix of security

assistance and political steps that will help get the country back on the right track. i'm open to working with administration to determine what we can do as a nation to help shore up the defenses of the iraqis and encourage political reconciliation among its iraqi leaders. i want to thank you for being here today. i look forward to this hearing and i look forward to us weighing in on what we believe is a most appropriate steps forward. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator corker. let me introduce our first panel, with us today is deputy assistant secretary of state for iraq and iran, brett mcgurk, who has just returned from a six-week trip to iraq where he was assisting the embassy team. and miss elissa slotkin, performing the duties of the principle deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, whose experience in iraq ranges from the intelligence community to the national security council to the state department and now to the defense department. let me remind both of you that your full statements will be included in the record without objection. i ask you to summarize them in

about five minutes or so that the members of the committee can engage with you in a dialogue. and with that, we'll start with you, mr. secretary. >> thank you. good morning. chairman menendez, ranking member corkers, members of the committee, i thank you for inviting us to discuss the situation in iraq with the focus on the u.s. response since the islamic state of iraq attacked mosul nearly seven weeks ago. let me first review the bidding on why this matters. isil is al qaeda. it may have changed names, may have broken with senior al qaeda leadership like zawahiri but it is al qaeda and doctrine and ambition and its threat to u.s. interests. should there be any question about the intentions of this group, simply read what its leader says, and it is important to pay attention to what he says because we cannot risk, underestimating the goals, capacity and reach of this organization. baghdadi on may 2011 eulogized the death of osama bin laden and promised a violent response.

training camps in syria are named after osama bin laden. in his audio statements, he issues veiled threats against the united states promising a direct confrontation and in his feud with al zawahiri, he is clearly seeking to lead the global jihad. additionally, isil is no longer simply a terrorist organization. it is now a full blown army, seeking to establish a self-governing state through the tigris and euphrates valleys in what is now syria and iraq. it now controls much of eastern syria, and in january in iraq moved into anbar province taking control of fallujah, and on june 10th, it moved on mosul. i arrived in erbil on june 7th and i'll begin there. in meetings with local officials from mosul and kurdish officials on june 7th, we received early indications that isil was moving in force from syria into iraq and staging forces in western mosul. we immediately asked and received permission from kurdish leaders to deploy peshmerga forces on the eastern side of

the city, but the government of baghdad did not share the same sense of urgency and refused the deployments. iraqi military commanders promised to send nine brigades of force to mosul in response to our warnings, we stressed however that the forces might not arrive in time. on june 9th, the situation remained extremely tense, and we continued to urge the immediate deployment of additional security forces to protect against an isil attack from west to east. in the early hours of june 10th, isil launched a complex suicide bomb attack against a strategic bridge and poured forces into the eastern part of the city. iraqi resistance collapsed, which led to a panic and snowballing effect southward through the tigris valley and the cities of tikrit, samara and balad. the result was catastrophic. five divisions were dissolved. and the approaches to baghdad were immediately under threat. i flew to baghdad first thing that morning with the focus on ensuring our people were safe, working with ambassador croft and our country team and working with the iraqis to make sure the northern approaches of baghdad were bolstered. my written testimony sets forth

in detail the critical elements of our the crisis response. we first made certain that our people would be safe, including contractors working in bases outside of baghdad, who are evacuated with the help of the iraqi air force. at the embassy, in the airport where we rebalanced staff to manage the crisis and brought in additional department of defense resources to ensure the security of our facilities. at the president's direction, we worked improve our intelligence pictures throughout western iraq. these intelligence and security initiatives were undertaken in parallel with regional diplomacy led by secretary kerry to better focus attention on the serious threat. we finally sought to stabilize the iraqi political process, recognizing that this attack took place at most vulnerable moment following national elections that were held in april 30th in which 14 million iraqis voted but prior to the formation of a new government.

this process remains extremely challenging but now has some traction. a new speaker of parliament was chosen last week. he is a moderate sunni arab elected with the overwhelming support from all major components in the new iraqi parliament. today, just about two hours ago, the new iraqi parliament elected a distinguished kurdish statesman to serve as the next president of iraq. he too was elected overwhelmingly with support from all major components in the newly elected parliament. iraqis are now proceeding along their constitutional timeline to choose a prime minister. which must happen within 15 days. as a president has said, it is not the place of the united states to choose iraq's leaders. it is clear, though, that only leaders that can govern with an inclusive agenda are going to be able to pull the country together and guide the iraqi people through this crisis. the current situation today in iraq remains extremely, extremely serious. isil remains in control of mosul and it is targeting all iraqis, sunni, shia, kurds, who disagree with its twisted version of a caliphate. it joined in an unholy alliance

with the baath party and some former insurgent groups like the islamic army of iraq. going forward, the iraqis with our support must seek to split the latter groups from isil and isolate isil from the hard core militant groups from the population. the platforms we have established through the immediate crisis response are providing additional information to inform the president and national security team as we develop options to protect our interests in iraq. any further decisions in this regard will be made in full consultation with this committee and the congress. any efforts we take moreover must be in conjunction with iraqi efforts to isolate isil from the population. this is because while we have a serious counterterrorism challenge in iraq, iraq has a serious counterinsurgency challenge and the two are linked. based on my last seven weeks on the ground in iraq, there is a clear recognition by iraqis from all communities that substantial reforms must be undertaken. this will require the formation of a new government, together with restructuring of the

security services. emerging consensus in iraq which we can fully support is a functioning federalism, consistent with iraq's constitution, based on the new realities on the ground, and focused on the following five principles. first, local citizens must be in the lead in securing local areas. second, the citizens defending their communities must be provided state benefits and state resources, perhaps modeled on the lines of the national guard force type for structure. third, the iraqi army must be restructured. commanders have failed in mosul and have since been fired and replaced with new commanders who work very closely with. the federal army should also focus on federal functions such as protecting borders and rarely deploy inside cities while providing overwatched support when necessary. fourth principle, there must be close cooperation between local, regional and national security services to gradually reduce operational space for isil, particularly in the province. the government through the new parliament and cabinet must work on package of reforms that can

address legitimate grievances from all communities and ensure adequate resources. to these restructured security services. these five principles can begin to address many of the core grievances in the sunni majority areas of iraq and also importantly denying space for isil to operate and there by protect the shia majority and other groups from isil attacks. restoring stability and degrading isil will require smart integrated approach led by a new iraqi government with u.s. support and assistance. iraqi leaders from all communities have asked for assistance in implementing this program, and general austin our commander is on the ground today to further assess the situation and discuss concrete ways in which our assistance might be effective. this model of a functioning federalism is achievable, and it is essential if we hope to deny space for isil within the borders of iraq. i look forward once again to discussing more details in the answers to your questions and thank you again for the opportunity to testify this morning. >> miss slotkin. >> thank you chairman menendez,

ranking member corker, and distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the administration's response to the current security situation, my remarks will focus on what the department of defense is particularly doing. i just want to foot stamp some of the things that brett just said, the u.s. does have a vital national security interest in ensuring that iraq or any other country does not become a safe haven for terrorists who could threaten the u.s. homeland, u.s. citizens or interests abroad. as the president has said, isl's advance across iraqi territory in recent weeks and particularly its ability to establish safe haven in the region poses a threat to u.s. interests and the middle east. and i don't restrict my views and comments today just to iraq. the geographic borderses of iraq. i believe we have a real regional problem on our hands. as brett has said, the situation on the ground is complex and fluid. we are therefore taking a responsible, deliberate and

flexible approach to the crisis. but i do want to be clear there is no exclusively military solution to the threat posed by isil. the iraqis must do the heavy lifting. in the meantime, the department of defense remains postured should the president decide to use military force as part of a broader strategy. our immediate goals as announced on june 19th are to, one, protect the people and property -- people and property in iraq. two, to gain a better understanding of how we might train, advise and support the iraqi security forces should we decide to do that. and number three, to expand our understanding, particularly via intelligence of isil. all three are critical to any future u.s. strategy vis-a-vis iraq. and to that end we have done four things through the department of defense. we have added forces to protect our people. the safety of our citizens obviously is our highest priority. the department has met the request for the department of state as described in the war powers notifications.

we transmitted the department of defense has sent what is called a fleet anti-terrorism security team, what we call a fast team, a crisis response element, and additional military assets and personnel to reinforce security both at our diplomatic facilities in baghdad and at the baghdad international airport. the secretary of defense has also ordered the am fib with us transport ship uss mesa verdi into the arabian gulf. the presence in the gulf is added to other naval ships including the uss george h.w. bush and provides the president additional options to protect american citizens and interests in iraq should he choose to use them. number two, we have vastly increased our intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance isr assets. at the request of the government of iraq, we surged isr over iraq since the fall of mosul and increased our information sharing activities. these isr sorties which are up to 50 plus per day give us a much better understanding of

isil operations and disposition and allow us to help -- help the isf counter isil. we're now capable of around the clock coverage of iraq and have been focusing our efforts on isil controlled territory and baghdad. we also sent in u.s. assessment teams and stood up joint operation centers. on june 19th, the president announced these additional measures including the deployment of just about 300 additional u.s. military advisers to evaluate how we must -- might best train, advise and support the isf. the small teams of special forces are working to evaluate the isf in and around baghdad in particular. the teams are armed for self-defense, but they do not have an offensive mission. and then the two joint operation centers, one in baghdad, one in erbil in northern iraq, they have both been established to help support the efforts on the ground. a quick word about the

assessments. i know that's of interest. secretary hagel and chairman dempsey received the draft assessment of the isf last week from central command. department leaders are undertaking a deliberate and rigorous review of the assessment which will inform recommendations to the president. meanwhile, additional assessment work continues as you heard general austin is on the ground today with respect to the developing situation on the ground. in closing, i want to reiterate that we have a vital security interest in ensuring that iraq or any other country not become a safe haven for terrorists. we do need a regional approach and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. yesterday -- during yesterday's hearing with the house foreign affairs committee, you both argued that the policy of the united states should be for a unified iraq with a strong baghdad base federal government. but many look and say that what is happening on the ground is accelerating towards a breakup of iraq because too many of iraq's communities no longer trust the maliki government.

and the question is whether there is anything we can do to prevent it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we testified clearly in my written statement as well the model is a functioning federalism under the iraqi constitution. so nobody is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. it simply won't work. there is a model within the constitution for this functioning federalism in which you recognize a very substantial devolution of authorities, the principles of local security control, and that is something that i found in my last seven weeks there is an emerging consensus around. and through the process of forming a government, i think the details will be flushed out. i know general austin is discussing some of the concepts as we speak, special restructuring the security forces. don't think anyone is trying to create a strong central government that will retain control all over the country. in fact, i think everybody recognizes now that from the center out you're not going to be able to retain control in all parts of the country, but also most importantly, locals and tribes on their own also will not be able to deny space for

isil because of isil's very significant military capability. you need a principle of local security control, but with a national resource base. and that is all within the federalist model of the constitution. >> the question is, though, okay -- so federalist model. the question is can you even get to a federalist model the way things are evolving in iraq? >> i think we can -- i think you can because of -- >> what needs to happen? >> well, first we have to get a new government formed. and that's very important. because the new government will obviously be the body that directs where -- frame of that being? it is past due, right? >> under the constitutional framework and the timelines, as soon as there is a new president, which just happened, there is now a 15-daytimeline to charge a prime minister to form a government. and so we will know within 15 days the prime minister nominee, whoever that is he then has 30 days to name a cabinet and present the cabinet to parliament for a vote.

those timelines, however, can be substantially accelerated. for example, under the constitution once there was a speaker, there are 30 days to name a president. they did that in i think eight days. and we are working very hard to accelerate those timelines. >> now, if it ends up being prime minister maliki, how do you think you keep the government together? this nation together? >> as i mentioned in my statement, as the president said, it is not our job to pick the leaders, but the leaders do have to have a very inclusive agenda and pull the country together. >> i'm not asking you to pick, nor i do suggest we should. the question is that if that is the result, by their own choice, it seems to me that it is very difficult, based upon what has happened so far, based upon sunni responses to isis, at least in the context of their grievances with president national government, that what is -- isn't the likely outcome of that to be more possible to see a divided iraq?

>> the prime minister will be chosen from the shia political blocs. and grand ayatollah sistani interestingly over the last month has been very active and laid down some guide posts for how to form the next government. first, it has to correct the mistakes of the past, meaning it can't look anything like the current government. second, you need new leaders that reflect a national consensus. we had that now with the speaker and the president. and so the prime minister will also have to reflect that emerging national consensus. it remains to be seen whether the existing prime minister could build such a consensus. but that remains very much in question. >> you commented in the house hearing yesterday that options being developed for the president are more concrete and specific as a result of the u.s. military advisers in the ground and increase intelligence collection. what guidance have you received in terms of timing for these decisions and how will the political and security conditions on the ground influence the president's decisions?

>> well, as i said, the assessments came in last week. they're dense. they're significant. and so we're still working through those. after we have done that, the president -- i'm sorry, the secretary and the chairman will make informed recommendations to the president. >> are you going to be able tell us anything more than what i read in "the new york times," more than i knew before you came here? >> i understand. i would caution against using elite half report in "the new york times" as your basis for understanding it. >> the absence of having information leads me to only publicly report it and resources. so when do you intend to come to us in whatever setting to advise the congress? this committee has jurisdiction over arms sales. and my reticence to arms sales to iraq has in some respects been proven true when in fact we have had much of our equipment abandoned and now in the hands

of isis. so unless you're going to give us a sense of where the security forces are at, moving forward, this chair is not going to be willing to approve more arm sales so they can be abandoned to go to the hands of those who we are seriously concerned about, in terms of our own national security interests. >> sir, i understand. and our intent is to come and brief congress at the time when we have piled through it ourselves. we have kept the congress very informed. i know i've been up at least twice a week for our committees. we are committed to remaining in close contact with you and there is no attempt to hide it from you. >> i would just add, mr. chairman, i think we're in a race against time. there is no question. >> that's my point. >> and one thing we have found, first of all, by surging special forces teams, by surging intelligence assets as you mentioned, we do know more than we knew even six weeks ago. security forces around baghdad and particularly north of baghdad, i described this in my written testimony, are trying to

do some things to fight back. they have taken a thousand casualties in the last month. these units, we have relationships with, are fighting, they're capable. and those are the types of units that we're looking at ways to further assist. but, again, this is all being discussed by the national security team as we -- >> you have influences here. my understanding is assad has been part of bombing isis in iraq. of course, you have iran here. how is that going to complicate or instruct what you might be willing to do? >> it is part of the overall assessment and i can just speak for my own firsthand experience in the initial days of this crisis as isil it looked like was moving down the tigris valley and our information was very sketchy and there was a bit of a panic throughout the iraqi security forces and we had to bolster them and try to create a circuit breaker so that that advance halted.

there was a security vacuum it that there is no question that our strategic competitors sought to step in and fill. and iraq lacks any capacity to do deep strikes in their border regions. countries show up at their door and say, hey, we can help you with that. the iraqis have pushed back in some regards, but in some respects they have accepted support. >> they have accepted assad bombing, have they not? >> no. no. we have no indication there is any coordination with the assad regime when it comes to security cooperation. but they're very concerned about the collapse of their border, particularly the collapse of a strategic border town which fell about three weeks ago. >> they have accepted iranian support? >> they have accepted low level iranian support. there is no question, yes. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just along those lines, how do you assess u.s. influence right now? i know there are a number of other regional interests that are playing a role.

i know that those of who visited recently know that, you know, before this all occurred, u.s. influence was at an all time low and really almost not present. i know that's changed some. but where -- where would you assess our influence to be in iraq right now? >> senator, i would -- since this crisis particularly in mosul, we have been embraced particularly, our military personnel, who have come in. i was at the joint operations center, which we have set up now. i was there on thursday, speaking with all of our military personnel there, all of whom have years of experience in relationships in iraq. we have been embraced by their military, particularly special forces assessment team, the iraqis have given us full access to air space for intelligence flights, they have given us the legal requirements we need to be there. we have been embraced and i think there is an opportunity because they certainly want our assistance. they want our equipment, they want our training, our fms case is about a -- our package is $15

billion total. they paid about $11 billion of that. they put $193 million in the federal reserve into that account just last week. so the iraqis are very eager under our strategic framework agreement for u.s. assistance to be the backbone of their response. but, of course, there are things they need to do as well. that's the conversation we're having with them. >> and are there competing interests? as you all are deepening the relationship again and helping in the way that -- in the way that we are, are there conflicts or competing interests that you're dealing with there on the ground? >> yes. and in fact some of the tactics that the iraqis pursue, we totally don't agree with. and in fact i think by moving in aggressively as we have over the last six weeks we'll increasingly increase our influence over some of the tactics. we have advised the iraqis, for example, not to go into urban areas. lessons we learned. the iraqis made a decision to go into tikrit, we didn't really support that decision. we have advised the iraqis since january not to go into fallujah. they have not gone into

fallujah. there is a military conversation which is a little bit outside of my expertise and that's why general austin is on the ground talking to their new military commanders, and just a point on our influence, we -- i had a number of conversations with the prime minister on down, since january, and said your generals, mr. prime minister, are not telling you the truth about the situation. that clearly was true. particularly in mosul. those commanders are now gone. and they have appointed a series of new commanders who we happen to work very closely with and we hope that type of relationship can continue. >> i think that kind of involvement that we had and we lost, you know, where we were able to have the shuttle diplomacy and have the kind of activity that is now taking place has helped create the situation on the ground. no doubt, on the other hand, prime minister maliki has not been the kind of prime minister to create any kind of sense that a central government can resolve the ethnic and civil issues that

exist there. do you really believe, bottom of your heart, there is somebody in iraq, the shia sect, that can do that as prime minister if we move through this process? >> senator, we had extreme frustrations with the iraqi government, particularly over the last year. and this one reason we focused most decisively on making sure elections happen, they happen on time, they were credible, and they did happen. they happened on april 30th. they have created a new parliament and through that parliament new leaders will emerge. there are a handful of very capable leaders who may emerge as the next prime minister of iraq, but we'll have to see this one unfold fairly rapidly over the coming days. >> miss slotkin, i know there was a little discussion between you and the chairman relative to the assessment that is taking place. can you just broadly tell us of anything that you all have learned over the last three weeks that you did not know prior to the assessment? >> sure. i think the thing when we put

the assessors on the ground that was the biggest open question given the march isil had across and into mosul and down is what is the status of baghdad, would the isf be able to defend baghdad. that was our critical first question, especially given the size of our mission there. and i think one of the early things that we saw as we got on the ground was that there was a stiffening of the iraqi security forces in and around baghdad to protect the capital, which we thought was critically important. we certainly weren't aware until we got on the ground. i do think some of the early indications are frankly mixed. that there are some very capable units that have high morale and that are willing and capable of fighting and there are other units where morale is lower, where there may not be as much capability and willingness to actually fight. and it is sorting out the details of that that we're working on right now. >> and if you were to surmise after you do this assessment, what do you think the range of options will be that will be

presented to the president relative to our activities, militarily, in iraq? >> yeah. i think without crowding any decision space, all of the military options we could possibly consider have to fit into a much wider regional strategy. that's not a lead by the -- >> tell me what that means. you said that in your opening comments. >> sure. >> i think most people on this committee have been concerned. we have very, very strong support for efforts in syria. are you referring to syria and iraq? is that basically -- >> syria in iraq given isil's march, but in particular making sure the -- we don't see a further spread. i mean, i know everyone -- >> okay. >> and jordan has been very particularly a focus for us given the border area there with iraq. but this is part of the administration's attempt to try and create this counterterrorism partnership fund to shore up particularly the neighbors of

iraq and syria, to make sure that they have a flexible way to respond to the threats, to make sure we don't see that spread. and then to ask for funding for training the vetted syrian for training the vetted syrian opposition so we have some attempt from the inside of syria to secure up those areas, as well. so the -- it's impossible to just look at the isil threat at iraq only because it's, as i said yesterday, it's kind of like air in a balloon. you squeeze on one end, it just goes somewhere else. we need a comprehensive approach inside out and inside out. >> so it's interesting you say that. i think people on this committee have been saying for like a year and a half that when the time was right, when we could have taken steps and n syria that could have prevented this, they weren't taken. and so now it's interesting that the administration's looking at a regional approach. and is that solely because now

there is this counterterrorism issue that the situation's gotten so bad it didn't have to, but it has, has gotten so bad now that it's a threat to the homeland and that's the reason you're looking at a regional approach? what do you think it is that's taken so long with so many people crying out on both sides of the aisle to please do something relative it -- to the moderate opposition in syria knowing that there is no border there, knowing that it was destabilizing iraq? is it this counterterrorism issue solely that's now caused the administration to look at it regionally? >> so i think the administration has been looking at this regionally for a while. i don't think -- >> been looking at it. >> i don't think that's fair. i think that we've invested heavily in some serious border security work with jordan. we've done programs with lebanon. we've done programs with turkey. this is not beginning from anew here. >> yeah. >> but i do think that the thing that surprised us, frankly, was the collapse of the iraqi

security forces in and around mosul and four divisions essentially melting away. if you would have asked me that a year ago, i would have not assessed that. and i think that the spread of isil, given the number of foreign passport holders that we know have traveled back and folder to syria, western passport holders, it does focus the mind. >> yeah. >> if i could just ask one last question or make a statement. we had a really, really strong vote here and great debate on supporting the moderate opposition. and i was glad to get the call that, you know, the white house is now looking at i guess $500 million in actual defense department support for these -- i have to say, and first time i've said it out loud, i've now gotten to the point where i question -- i hate to say it --

how effective it's going to be. there's a point in time when it could have been really effective, and i now question whether now at this point with all that's happened -- when now at this point with all that's happened, with isil and the effectiveness, whether the administration feels that small amount at this late date still has the possibility to do real good in syria. >> sir, i think you can't fight something with nothing. so i think that it's important to start. >> well, we've been doing that for a long time. so it's interesting -- i agree with you, and i think everybody here does. i guess the question is, can you fight something with almost nothing? at this point when it's festered into this type of situation. >> we'll move to the senator. >> i do think it's important we have put together a program that

is scaleable. you can start small and move up significantly in the numbers and scale of the program, and we think it's critical that we start. >> senator boxer? >> thank you. i look at things just a little bit differently than a lot of folks here. i think the iraqis had a chance of a lifetime and america's blood and treasure gave them that chance of a lifetime. a chance at unity, a chance at peace. and with their natural resources a chance at a growing economy, and clearly those of us, minority of 23 who predicted this, if we went to war, we did not prevail. that's life, you don't prevail so you move on. then later when then-senator biden, the chairman of this

committee, proposed more autonomy for the sunnis and for the kurds, oh -- and pie the way, more than 70 senators voted for that. the then-bush administration lasted at it kind of like -- laughed at it kind of like people laughed right now. that's a lot of laughing. and that was turned away. so the situation in iraq i think is dire now. and i'm not about to reinvest more lives and treasure. the united states has sacrificed too much. the war cost us $2 trillion. people predicted it would be over in weeks, months. more than 4,400 americans were killed, their families never the same. 32,000 wounded during the course of the war, and we all know, and i praise senator sanders and mccain for battling to get help

for those who are suffering from physical and mental injuries. so i'm pleased that president obama said unequivocally american forces will not be returning to combat in iraq, and i want the record to show that i will never vote to send more combat forces in. you know, you get so many chances in a lifetime. i want to ask you about the kurds. both of -- i don't know which of you could answer. the kurds in northern iraq have long been a strong ally of the united states, and they have played an important role in countering the rapid advance of isis. when i went to iraq a long time ago, the bullets were flying. the kurds -- i found them to get what this was all about. and there's so much prejudice against the kurds. the kurdish militia offered to support iraqi security forces

when isis began its offensive in mosul. kurdish forces have kept much of northern iraq out of terrorists' hands. kurdistan has become a destination for hundreds of thousands of iraqis fleeing from isis-controlled territory. and i have to say as i watch mr. maliki i don't think he appreciates it. as the iraqis continue to work to determine their future, i'm asking you what role can the kurds continue to play and should the united states acknowledge that the kurds should have significant amount of autonomy? i think they've earned it, and i wondered what the administration position is vis-a-vis the kurds and more autonomy for the kurds. >> thank you, senator. we're in a very active conversation with all of the kurds about their future. there's some realities they're grappling with, the geostrategic and geographic realities.

they need about $14 approximately to sustain themselves operationally. their share of the budget this year which is pending in baghdad is about $17 billion. we think there is a deal there within the constitutional framework that is in the best interests of the kurds and also our interests both in northern iraq and iraq as a whole. however, since this crisis began -- and we recognize we're dealing with no realities that we have to recognize -- flew realities that we have to recognize and deal with. we have established a center to deal with the kurdish forces to make sure because they have about 1,000 kilometers with isis on a chunk of their border, and they're going to need some help. that will work effectively if it is done in cooperation and coordination with baghdad, of course with us providing a mediating role where necessary. so we're in a very active conversation with them. they have a good deal of autonomy now. i'm sure they will ask for more through the government information process, and that will be done through the constitution. vice president barzani has been

on the with our vice president biden several times. president barzani wants to work through the constitutional framework to deal with the boundaries with which the peshmerga has moved. short answer, we're in conversation with the kurds about this, and i'm happy to follow up with you as it unfolds in the coming months. >> and the united states will support more autonomy for the kurds then, i assume? >> well, through the government information process, there will be an active debate. i will say we very much support the kurds on particular critical issues. baghdad four or five months ago cut funding for salaries of workers in the kurdish region. we've made clear that's completely, totally unacceptable and has to be reversed. the kurds have also done some things in some cases in which we've said that might exacerbate tensions in a way that wouldn't be particularly constructive. that's why we're in a very active conversation. we support autonomy within the constitutional framework, certainly. >> okay. i'm just saying i don't know

what the future is of that constitutional framework. but we all hope it works. last question is, are you confident we have adequate personnel on the ground to truly protect our embassy and the americans in baghdad? >> senator, yes. we have moved in substantial assets both to the airport and also into the embassy. i was just there as late as thursday, and we're confident that our defensive perimeters and everything, that our people will be safe. our assistant secretary for diplomatic security just visited baghdad last week to do his own assessment. we've also had teams on the ground from centcom, an ongoing assessment, and our intelligence assets have the entire everything all around the perimeter of the city of baghdad, the airport, and our embassy very well covered. >> okay, can you tell us how many people we have at the embassy, or is that something that you don't want to discuss in open -- >> we have total in baghdad about 2,500 now. >> thank you. thank you.