>> would you agree with me -- right. that in june of 2010 that most of afghanistan is not governed in an effective manner where you have an honest police force and a noncorrupt functioning government, that most of the country doesn't fall under that model? >> i think that's a fair assessment. again, i would want to sit with you with a map and evening talk in a more new fanguance fashion. >> how many al qaeda are in afghanistan today? >> very small numbers. perhaps in the double digit numbers. that's small. if any. the nexus of al qaeda still, we believe is very much in the agencies of the federal administered tribal areas. >> how many are over there. >> of pakistan. >> how many are over there? >> in hundreds. this is a question of how do you

talk about the relationships between these. there are trainees moving through. there are relationships. how do you account for support crew, family members. as you recall a number of these individuals literally married into tribes over there and it becomes a very difficult accounting role in a region where people are survived by being chameleons at times. >> is it safe to say they move %%xt door? >> that's correct. >> what's the number of big t taliban that we're fighting in afghanistan, give or minus >> in the thousands and i can provide you with the whole lay down because, again, it depends on how you define not just, what is the afghan taliban. do you want to include the imu? do you include the network? do you include the commander? >> include them all.

>> then you're well into the thousands and then you have to start talk about the tiers of these different operatives, and, again, the leadership, of course, at the very top that matters greatly and then you get all the way down through the mid-level to the low level, the five or ten dollar a day taliban that can be broken off. again, you could argue -- this is not unlike iraq. you had the hard core al qaeda in iraq. very strands of insurgent elements. >> in the thousands >> certainly. our policy of withdrawing in july of 2011, as i under it, we're going to begin to withdraw in july of 2011. the only thing to question is the pace of the withdrawal, is that fair? >> indeed, senator, as i described it -- i want to get you a copy of the statement i made this morning because i tried to provide a very precise

description. >> july 2011 begins a process, a responsible draw down of the surge force and includes the beginning of a process of transition of some tasks to afghan officials and forces based on conditions and, again, all of this based on conditions. >> i want to make sure i do understand because you told senator kauffman it doesn't matter if we leave just a matter of how quick we leave. is that not true? >> based on conditions. given current projections. again, senator, i want you to read the statement i gave at the outset. >> as of june 2012 do you anticipate us having more or less than 50,000 american soldiers in afghanistan? >> senator, i wouldn't hazard a projection. i think that would be speculative and, again, we're a

year from the beginning of the process, which is a year from the date that you just stated, and it's just not productive. in fact it could be unproductive. >> one last -- how does the taliban view this policy. has this policy that we're going to begin withdraw in july of 2011, is there any indication that enemy is encouraged by that plus the fact that nato forces are beginning to withdraw? >> the enemy has a number of different emotions right now, senator. one is that the enemy is under greater pressure than at any time before and they are feeling this. we can -- we have insight into that's they say. and we have put some pretty big dents in to elements of the afghan/taliban in afghanistan and there's been some pretty big dents in the extremist ranks,

senior leader ranks findly administered tribal areas as well. having said that there san awareness of the july 2011 date, and there is some sense among some of them, they are watching nato allies as well, they have specifically with their information operations campaigns and their tactical campaigns targeted certain elements of the coalition, certain countries. and so, again, their strategy, certainly is to do what they have done in the past which is outlast whoever it is, that is confronting them. so, again, that's why, as i said, i try to be very precise this morning with what 2011 means. that's why your colleague senator lieberman, i believe, mentioned the words vital national security interests which, again, say something to all of us, as you know, we're featured in the president's speech at west point. and why, again, we should come

back to the fact as well that that was a message of urgency, that complimented the message of enormous commitment. let's not forget by the end of august of this year, senator nurjs of force on the ground, u.s. forces on the ground will be more than three times, triple what was on the ground at the beginning of 2009. that's vastly more than the surge in iraq and the number of civilians has tripled as well and the authorization you have provide is a very substantial one. 100,000 more nasf. that's a reflection of commitment as well. that's what we've tried to convey in the region, by the way. we sat down with all the regional leaders to ensure there's not -- and in my statement today i said let's be clear what july 2011 and and what it is not. we don't race for the exits and reach for the light switch.

[ inaudible ] less americans to fight, less nato troops to fight and that's the policy and that's a huge mistake to thank you. >> may i? if i could just add. you know, one of the reasons we've entered into a very public and high-profile strategic dialogue with our partners in afghanistan and, frankly, in pakistan as well, and we are issuing declarations out of that, is that we're trying to both flush out and communicate the nature of an enduring commitment to this region and what that's going to look like. and the fact that we're not leaving any time soon, even though the nature and complexion may change over time. >> any luck on our -- i think it may be working.

just in time. senator? >> thank you. i this it shut down for a while because it was freezing to death. it's so cold in here. i'm sure -- >> you want to call a superintendent to check our heat? >> no, i'm fine. >> we'll be out of here before he gets the heat on. >> i'm fine. >> we just lost it. on again. >> briefly on some contracting issues. we had a number of members talk about the private security contracting, and i would like to touch on that and police training. on the private security contracting, i take it, general petraeus, that you are perfectly willing to say on the record that we need to get back to this being more of an inherently governmental function as opposed to something we're contracting out? >> i would and let me, if i could just talk a little bit about the private security contractors, because -- i mean

there's obviously a reason that they are there and that is because they augment what our troops do just as they did in iraq. and what we learned in iraq we're trying apply in afghanistan have been for some time. is that to make sure that we get them under the authorities, that they understand the rules, if you will, that you all helped us with, with the defense authorization act and we use those in iraq, as you will recall and did at least two cases where we actually brought cases to court based on those authorities under the military commander because we had the jurisdiction over them and we are doing that in afghanistan as well and also applying the efforts to coordinate their activities, to ensure they are very clear on what their quote rules of engagement or self-defense are and that they are fully integrated into our battlefield awareness, our situational awareness in command and control systems as well.

now, general mcchrystal has also said he would like to get rid of private security contractors. in a perfect world, again, that would be an inherently governmental function, but the fact is that to do that requires -- there's a reason they are securing convoys, logistics, and others. i contracted out my own security in iraq when i was a three star general because we didn't have enough military police in this one organization to train and equip mission to secure all of those that were lower in rank than i was and i had enough clout to be able to contract it out. they couldn't do that for themselves so we gave them the mp unit that was designed for me. that's the situation that leads to this, and, again, it's a reality out there and it's a reality on the department of state front as well. >> just think it's something we need to continue to underline. >> correct.

>> if we're going to give our incredibly strong leaders missions to accomplish on behalf of the united states of america, we have to continue to bang the drum that we need the resources there that are necessary to perform government functions. it doesn't surprise me that you gave up your mp unit to contract out your security, but i think a whole lot of americans wouldn't be comfortable with that. i mean, you're an incredible resource for our nation. you deserve the best. >> i'm a three star not four star. >> the reason you became a four star you're an above average three star. i think that it would be important for us to acknowledge -- i do want to get on the record an acknowledgment we're pulling people out of the workforce in afghanistan that we need in our army and in our local police departments at

higher pay and sometimes they are not good guys. >> right. no. not only are we doing that there, president karzai and i had a conversation with ambassador holbrooke as well on the fact that in some cases we're investing in afghanistan's human capital, helping in the trial, educate sprirksd skills to people. they return to their inherrntly governmental function and then we compete with the afghan government in some case take them away and put them under contract to us as you name it, a doctor who is now an interpreter, a great governmental official who now becomes, again, who knows, human dream team. so that is a conflict. and it's something that afghanistan has to address in terms they need some rules and regulations and policies and we've got to be sensitive. i don't know if you heard or mention that the task force that we have formed -- >> general caldwell. >> -- this is one with the rear admiral who you will remember at

the time she was a one star joint contracting command iraq commander. she is now a two star and is going to go out and lead a task force that will compliment what the contracting command in afghanistan is doing to really get into the details of this and to look at some of these issues that are out there. also to get down to the subcontractors, to follow the money, to from this. >> i know, secretary, we asked you to put in the qdr now contracting plans that the defense authorization bill we're asking that the qdr can include contracting. we, i think, if we've learned anything over the last five years we've learned that if we are going to be fighting a counter insurgency far away, contracting is an essential piece of that mission, and we clearly, if we haven't learned

that lesson, then we're in real trouble. let me briefly on the afghan national police, i would certainly want there to be an acknowledgement somewhere that we may need to hold on to training local police as part of our fundamental core come pen tency in going guess the insurgency. this notion that we had it and it goes with defense and the state department takes it back and we have a problem with the contract and struggling with whether or not we competed -- here we are in the crucial months of a, of a strategy that has been adapted by our commander in chief and by the military in afghanistan and we, frankly, are flat footed as it relates to our ability to contract with the afghan national police trainers. >> i could not free with you more, senator. and we see this wherever there

is what we call an industrial strength mission. again, this is to take nothing away from state or inl. there are fantastic armies of one in those organizations. but they are not structured, they don't have the deployability, they don't have the self-protection, all the rest of these that in a counter insurgency situation they are terrific for the normal type of mission that has been performed in the past. but i lived through this in iraq. i watched us try to do it with a traditional structures and organization, and then ended up being the guy that had to take it over and pull it together and we just ended up taking more and more and more task, ultimately teen overall ministry advisory missions ended up being in the organization there after we tried to do it after the quote normal way and it didn't work. it's very important and there's an issue of interagency doctrine

there that's important there or interagency roles and missions. again, i'm one who like the secretary and secretary gates argue more resource for state and these different elements that are trying to perform these missions as well, the i could, there is one we have, in fact, formed, formed a couple of years ago, in fact when i was at fort leavenworth another hat was added for the commander, a joint center for national security force assistance and this is designed for the military to capture what is it we have learned about industrial strength efforts here too. because, again, we have learned -- traditionally we did this with special force who went out and train a couple of brigades in some country in africa or latin america. now, we are doing, again, bulk industrial strength efforts and we're having to use conventional force in very significant ways. they dwarf the numbers of our

green berets. i think we've done a reasonably good job in terms of doing that and then developing doctrine, the preparation of these forces, for deployment and the rest of that as well. >> thank you. i'm out of time but i do want to let you know, i'll submit for the record, i'm very concerned about this situation in kurdistan and the stability of that government, our relationship with that government as it relates to our airfield there. they arrested the president's son in the uk and there's serious allegations of skimming on fuel contracts. we have a back up of trains with fuel. that northern supply route is, we've and the a long time to get it in place and it looks precarious to me right now and that is of great concern so i'll address some questions to the record and will look forward to learning where you all think we

are as it relates to the ethnic strife we're seeing in central asia and how that impacts on our mission in afghanistan? >> could i very quickly reassure the northern distribution network, be the bulk of which on the ground, virtually all of it runs through is functioning very satisfactorily. we're at the point of 70% now of our supplies, not all of the other military equipment, but supplies run through the northern distribution network, which has helped enormously to take the pressures off the routes that come through karachi and also by the way the prices went down in pakistan as a result of having competition. what a surprise. beyond that, the kurdistan issue -- it's quite a disstance as you know. we had no security issues up

there. we're responding to and working hand in glove with state department to be prepared if there is a determination of humanitarian assistance or to help in any other way as we did, in fact, in the wake of the riots that resulted in the displacement of the government. and there's an osd team that is working on replacing the contract. in the mean time we've been able to deep fuel, we have all of our tankers back up there flying again and again that can just continue as we're sorting out the way ahead on the contract front. >> thank you. >> senator sessions. >> thank you both for your service to your country and i would like to go back to, i think the fundamental question that the american people have at the time of this hearing is that they are picking up information that things are not going well in afghanistan. they are concerned about it. members of congress are picking that up. we're seeing it in the media.

rightly or wrongly. and i guess i, first of all, secretary, i understood you to say that you believe the overall trajectory of our effort there is inning the right direction, and in a sense i guess that we're making progress, and towards the goal that we would like to see for afghanistan. is that a fair statement? >> it is, senator. i think we are moving in the right direction. the nature of the counter insurgency work is that there will be set backs along the way. it's very difficult. we're moving in the right direction. and the reports from your perspective that are pointing out problems and some are very real still don't dissuade you in that view that overall we're still on the right trajectory? >> yes, especially because we are still having the resources that the president ordered still coming into theaters, still

getting into place and not fully engaged yet in the fight and as they come online i think that will add to our ability to create some momentum. >> general petraeus, i remember still so vividly the decision to execute the surge, the president had to ask our soldiers who expected to come home to extend for three months, one of the most bitter things i remember having to go through, still emotional to me, and i remember asking you, did you think we can be successful in iraq. and at the time that was a matter of doubt. and i guess we can say that the trajectory of drawing the troops down so rapidly indicates that you, at least were right at this point in time. so, again, i'll ask you, do you think we can be successful in afghanistan given the current state of the affairs there? >> i do. again, it will not be easy.

nor was it in any way shape or form easy in iraq. it was very, very hard in iraq. we took very tough losses in iraq, as you well know. from visiting many different times, and there were significant ups and downs. i still remember, for example, way past the september hearings, well at the end of that year, for example, as various government leaders came to very senior u.s. officials and called for a very significant change in governmental leadership there. this is way beyond the point that anyone was disputing that there were significant security gains. this is a tough, tough business. and it is, as i've described earlier, very much a roller coaster ride. a roller coaster experience. and those who are living it have to try to keep their eye on the horizon to ensure that the trajectory is generally upward and i agree with the

undersecretary that it is. >> you talk about the state department and their contributions which are very valuable, but you also pointed out that the ngos don't carry security with them and it's difficult for them to full film their responsibilities in an insurgency situation and with the very safety of american personnel are still at stake, doesn't it make sense -- i'll just say it this way. in my opinion that the people who are in these prts, the people who are out there are mostly military and we need to understand that they have the ability and can effectively dispense aid for local projects, and so forth, that can save lives, and i think the

military -- really such an intensity of interest in this because soldiers' lives are at stake. so, would you comment on that fundamental balance between -- where the reconstruction money should be allocated. >> first of all, your point is very well taken. secondly prts, by and large are significantly military. >> provencial reconstruction teams. they are a mix of civilian and military. typical slcivilian leadership a you'll have civilians that brings skills that are hard to find at least within the military although sometiies in our reserve components we have thoss skills. but what we want to do is partner -- by the way we do have significant skills in uniforms, folks who pack weapons and everything else and are prepared

to go down range, many of them, again, from our reserve components who perform civilian functions when not in uniform that lend themselves very well to these kinds of tasks and then on top of that we have the national guard agricultural development teams that have been superb. these are individuals that are farming experts. in some cases they are leaders in the agriculture departments of their states or counties, and they have been very valuable over there and they come as an entire self-contained unit, so you have a unit that can move itself, feed itself, secure itself, and communicate and provides the expertise in the agricultural arena on top of that. so, this is a mix, that's the way it ought to be. we can dispense some of the money and indeed the funds are substantial when you talk about $1.1 billion. that's a significant amount of known dispense.

and certainly we coordinate then very carefully with a.i.d. and the other elements doing reconstruction and development work to make sure we're not double tapping a particular target or project. >> well, two things. first, i do believe, often 90% of the prts are military personnel operating them. and number two -- i guess the chairman asked you about why we aren't moving on the, utilizing that money that's being asked for. >> in fact, we have a plan. the undersecretary explained which will obligate a substantial amount of this on top of what's been obligated and our footprint expands and it's

completed the obligation rate will pick up as well. >> just briefly there's been a slow down in kandahar. general mcchrystal said he was going to slow down a little bit. karzai did go there recently, very recently. he hadn't done that enough, in my opinion. but he went, had a meeting with the kandahar leaders, senator levin and i did a couple of years ago, met with a lot of their people, and they all are serious individuals, respected in their local areas, and he called on them for support and a majority of the audience raised their hands when he asked for their support. i think general mcchrystal saw that as a strong, clear call for unity and that karzai displayed extraordinary ownership of the

operation. how would you evaluate that and does that indicate that we're not doomed in kandahar, but actually maybe laying the ground work for successful operations? >> that was, indeed, one of the most important of the political shaping operation. there was also another shia counsel that president karzai held about 15,000 to 20,000 of local elders and leaders. it was so inclusive a number of them felt no reluctance in standing up with the tv cameras rolling and criticizing the afghan government and in some cases president karzai who turned and pointed the finger at himself as welll in read the statement, the talk points that president karzai used that were translated. they were very good. in fact i-told the chairman we would get copies of them to the committee. we had a video teleconference

with general mcchrystal yesterday morning, the weekly that's done with the secretary of defense and the rest of us. and he felt quite encouraged by it also. the fact is i always felt that kandahar was going to take months and months and months. and it's not a revelation to me that this will go into the winter. that's what i've always expected it would, having been on the ground in kandahar and having done so very recently i think a month, month and a half ago most recently and walked around and talked to the governor and talked to other leaders there as well. so, again, he's going about it. he's changing slightly how he's going to start by doing more focused training partnering with some afghan force before they launch their portion of the tactical operation. that's very sensible to me. again, i don't see that as extending the overall timeline necessarily. that's a component of the plan

that i think tactical commander has every reason to adjust as he sees fit. >> thank you very much, senator sessions. senator >> thank you, mr. chairman. general petraeus, good to see you again. about a month going you were kind enough to host me and senator nelson and we talked about a number of issues. i want to follow on what my colleague from alabama talked about. when we had that meet weg talked about your confidence in president karzai as a partner for our country in this effort to fight the taliban and fight al qaeda. and these recent comments that president karzai made in kandahar are welcomed, but they follow his comments that were reported around the 10th of this month that he had loss faith in the u.s.'s ability to defeat the taliban. and i wanted to get an update from you about your confidence

level in our partnership and in his leadership in fighting this war. >> well, senator, thanks and great to see you again as well. if i could just start off by saying that i think that the quote statement that he lost faith in the u.s. is a newspaper account, not certainly a quote directly from him and it's more a characterization from some second, third hand sources and it does not square, frankly, with what my contacts with him in recent months would have predicted, nor what general mcchrystal reports nor the who have frequent contact with him in kabul. it is very significant, that is the next important milestone in setting the political conditions for the conduct of the military operations recognizing many of the security challenges in

kandahar are related to political or economic disputes, tensions, friction and so forth. so that is a significant step forward. it doesn't mean the taliban is going to turn around and bow in his direction. they will continue their campaign of trying to intimidate and attack our soldiers and our afghan partners. but, this is very important in getting the people on the side of the government, knowing what is going to happen and he didn't hold out rosey futures. he said this is going to be difficult and fight the taliban et cetera. at the end of the day, his success is our success. so, working and clearly following the president's guidance of a couple of months ago whatever that was, that we indeed have to support the leader of the sovereign country that we are trying to help. >> so you are still as confident

in the partnership as you were when we last met? >> yes, now clearly there is an issue with the resignation of the minister of interior and the national -- their intelligence service. the nds, we know those individuals, we have all worked with him. we all regard them as competent. but i think before we start judging what that will do to the ministries and to the overall effort, we have to see who the replacements are. we must judge their competence and for what it is worth, the discussions that we are aware of, some of which americans have participated in, as various candidates have been considered, indicate that the replacements will be competent individuals

and individuals that we have confidence in and can work with. you want it? >> thank you, senator. before you came in, we had president karzai and 14 of his cabinet members here and they left with a very clear sense of a longer termed u.s. commitment. we were talking about activities that will extend over the next five to ten years in security securitysisecurity assistance and education and they left with no question that we see that as a vital interest for the united states. >> and that goes to the timeline that my colleagues have already questions you about that. how many of the troops are now deployed of the surging effort? >> the final that will take us up to 98,000 figure.

keep in mind, we started in january 2009 with 30-3130-31,00e security of defense has has been discussed has some flex factor as required too for emerging for protection needs and other critical requirements. we are almost at the 21 tho,000 the additional 30 tho,000 on th ground. this is actually slightly ahead of schedule you'll in terms of personnel given the volcanic eruptions and the haiti emergency relief operation and other challenges including the issues with the transit center with fuel of a month or so ago. and yet, it has all stayed on frac

track, what we call transpo transportation nation lead by a host of individuals and so forth. these, they have performed miracles and were issuing equipment early to the brigade that is moving into the ca da h kandahar area now. >> all will be on the ground by the end of august. there is one element that is not required by that time. it doesn't rotate until after that. >> you expect that amount of troops by august will be sufficient to what you need to accomplish the mission? >> that is correct. general has stated that this will enable us to be what is required to carry out the strategy. recognizing that we will always ask for the needs, that is our

obligation to our troopers and secretary gates has his flex factor that could enable him to satisfy some of that at his level. >> i would expect as we come into the summer of 2011, if you needed to increase that level on the ground, that you would made that recommendation to the president. >> that is correct. in my statement i stated we will look at the conditions on the ground at that time. i and i'm sure all of the other military leaders involved will provide our most forthright and best professional military advise and then at the end of the day support the ultimate policy decision made by the president. >> thank you. my time is up. i wanted to also talk to you about iran and what their influence is currently in afghanistan, so i will submit questions to you for the record.

>> thank you. >> thank you, i am going to enter the final committee of the point that has been fairly made here by senator graham that the taliban knows that we are going to have fewer troops in afghanistan starting in july of 2011. your answer is accurate in how many fewer and the speed of the reductions. it is also true that the taliban knows that the afghan army which is an army that thesu support is going to be far, far bigger in july of 2011 than it is now. and i think it is also true that the afghan government understands that those reductions which will begin in 2011 -- i think the point of

them is, one of the points, is that will give to that government a greater sense of urgency about their responsibility to take their own security on. as their obligation more than it is ours. is that something that you would agree with? >> absolutely. >> and they want to fully exercise their sovereignty including providing security for their own people. >> we have done well. if there is a quick comment? >> mr. chairman, if i might follow up in terms of messages that we might send to the taliban. i don't expect this to happen, but am i correct in understanding that he feels he actually needs additional american troops that he is free to wrequest that? >> absolutely. >> and then the final question, there has been some discussion

about different ways in which as we head toward july 2011, we can reassure both the afghans, their enemies and the region of their long-term commitment. there is some interest it seems to me as you know i'm sure, in the afghans in seeking a longer term security relationship with us, including potentially becoming designated as a major non-nato ally, and that would go beyond july 2011. and might obligate us to funding, secretary, is that on the table? >> that is on the table. we were working together with our afghan partners on the framework for the relationship mid to long-term. as we develop that, we will be consulting with you here. we would also like to make that a public framework so it is very

clear our potential for a long and sustaining relationship is clear to everyone. afghans and taliban and everyone in the region. >> are you in suppaort of that general? >> yes. i don't want to prejudge the policy, but certainly discussions have been made. >> that is very encouraging. if i might throw the parallel, as new countries have come into nato, as you know, the understanding has been that this is an exchange. that you get the value of nato or being a judge non-nato ally, for instance and one of the things that you do in response is to improve your own military and reform your government. and there might be a constructive quid pro quo here,

but i thank you for that and look forward to hearing more about it. thank you for an excellent morning of testimony. and encouraging. i think as we said earlier, if you accept the goal and principle that we have a vital national security interest in succeeding in afghanistan as president obama has besided, then we' decided, then we've got to figure out how to achieve that goal. >> thank you very much.then we'w to achieve that goal. >> thank you very much. >> i have put huge importance on getting that afghan army trained, equipped, enlarged and taking the lead in operations including in kandahar. that has been my focus since the beginning of this effort in afghanistan. i have very much felt that that decision to set a date for the beginning of reduction in july

of 2011 is essential in order to energi eergize the afghan gover to take principle responsibility for their own security. i believe that deeply and i think it is a part of counter insurgesy that, that happen. and it is going to make a huge difference in terms of success. i also very much support a long-term relationship with afghanistan. both security relationship and equipment economic and political relationship. and i don't believe that is inconsistent with my belief that the afghan government must get a message of urgesy ur jen urgenc

taking responsiblresponsiblity. i think they depend on each other, because i think success in afghanistan is going to depend on the willingness of the government to take responsibility for descent governance inside of afghanistan that will win the respect of all those in afghanistan. i do believe at the same time, that they should understand that we have a long-term commitment. and those of you who want to place greater response bity e i them share that. we thank you both. it has been a long couple of days. and it has been very, very

helpful and constructconstructi. and we appreciate it. thank you very much, we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> search the cspan video library. for a snapshot of all the members of the 100 let congress, cspan's congressional directory is available at c- span.org/store. >> our public appears content is available on television, radio, and online and you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube and sign up are scheduled a lawyer -- alert e- mails. >> president obama met with bp

executives at the white house yesterday. $20 billion in an escrow account to deal with the gulf oil spill. statements following the meeting and the president and the bp executives. this is 15 minutes. >> we talked about the containment of the oil still spewing into the gulf. my administration has directed bp to mobilize additional equipment and technology and in the coming days and weeks, these j should capture up to % of the oil that is leaking out of the well. that is not good enough so we

will continue to press bp and drop on our best month in resources to capture all the oil until the company can drill a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely. the second topic recalled her on the issue of claims. as i travelled across the gulf, i heard growing frustration over the pace at which claims had been paid. i also heard concerns about whether bp will make resources available to cover legitimate claims resulting from this disaster. this discussion today was the central. currently under federal law, there is a 75 million-dollar cap on how much oil companies could be required to pay for economic damages resulting from an spill. that amount would be insufficient, obviously. i am pleased to announce that bp

has agreed to set aside $20 billion to pay claims for damages resulting from this oil spill. this $20 billion will provide substantial insurance on the claims that people and businesses have. this is not a cap. the people of the gulf have my commitment that bp will meet its obligations. bp has publicly pledged to meet their commitments to the people in the gulf. we have set up a financial and legal framework to do it. another important aspect is that this $20 billion fund will not be controlled by bp or the government. it will be put in an escrow account administered by an impartial independent third party. if you or your business has suffered an economic loss as a

result of this oil spill, you will be eligible to fire -- filed a claim for part of this money. this fund does not supersede the their individual rights or state rights to present claims in court. bp will also continue to be liable for the environmental disaster it has caused and will continue to work to make sure the address that. additionally, the peak voluntarily agreed to establish a $100 million fund to compensate unemployed oil rig workers are affected by the closure of the deep water oil rig. we mutually agreed that ken feinberg will run the independent claims process we are putting in place. there will be a panel to adjudicate claims that are turned down every effort will be made to expedite these claims. ken feinberg has long experience such matters including running the fund that compensated the victims of 9/11. i am confident he will assure

the clans are administered as quickly and fairly and transparently as possible. cbp liabilities for the oil spill are significant and they acknowledge that fact. we will continue to hold them and all responsible parties accountable. i am confident that the people meet their obligations to the gulf coast and to the american people. bp is a strong and viable company. it is in all of our interest that it remains so. this is about accountability. at the end of the day, that is what every american wants and expects. the structure we are establishing is an important step toward making the people of the gulf coast whole again but it will not turn around things overnight. i will continue to fight each and every day until the oil is contained and businesses recover and until the gulf coast bounces back from this tragedy as i know

it will. one last point -- during a private conversation with the chairman of bp, i emphasized to him that for the families i met with in the gulf, for the small- business owners, for the fisherman and shrimpers, this is not just a matter of dollars and cents. many of these folks did not have a cushion. there were cut off on her cane reed and katrina. they came off the worst economy this country has seen since the great depression. this season was going to be the season where they were going to bounce back not only that, but this happened at the worst possible time. they are making their entire

income for the year in the three or four months during which folks can take their boats out and people come down for tourism. i emphasize to to the chairman that when he talked to shareholders and meetings in his boardrooms, keep in mind those individuals that are desperate. if some of them don't get really quickly they may lose business -- lose businesses that have been and their families for two or three generations the chairman assured me that he will keep them in my. that will be the standard by which i measure the bp response. i think today is a good start it should provide some assurance to some of the small business owners and individuals in the gulf coast that i visited with that bp will meet its responsibilities. i indicated to the chairman that

throughout this process as we work to make sure the gulf is made whole once again that the standard i will apply is whether or not those individuals i met with and their family members and those communities that are tolerable, whether they are uppermost in the mind of all concerned. that is who we are doing this for. thank you very much, everybody. >> we have had a very constructive meeting today with the president. we appreciate his deep concern. we appreciate the deep concern that he feels for the people in the region. you can hear in his speech today

his frustration. i trust also that the president senses the sadness and sorrow that we feel for this tragic accident that should never have happened. bp has always met our obligations and responsibilities and we made clear from the first moment of this tragedy that we live up to all our legitimate responsibilities. we have agreed today with the president on a framework that should assure the american people that we mean that what we say. we will look after the people affected and we will repair the

damage to this region and to the economy. we are announcing today, as you heard the president, a $20 billion commitments to make sure that all appropriate claims are handled swiftly and fairly. we have also announced an independent adjudicator to make sure that the right people will get the right money at the right time. the bp board has today decided that we will not pay any further dividends this year. we made it clear to the president that words are not enough.

we understand we will and should be, just by our actions. what is clear today is that this demonstration -- that this administration and our company are fully aligned to clean the beaches and care for those who are affected. finally, i would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the american people on behalf of all the employees at bp. many of them are living on the gulf coast. i do thank you for the patientce that you have exhibited in this time. through our actions and commitment we hope that we will

regain the trust you have in us. thanks a lot and i will take a couple of questions. >> [unintelligible] >> we are going through a series of investigations. we on the board will do our unintended -- are an independent investigation where we scrutinize everything we do to make sure we understand the causes of this tragic accident. i have no further comments on that. >> were there any sticking points over your agreement and are you concerned about illegitimate payments? >> i think it was a constructive meeting. there were many different parts to it. we want to get it right. the determination and the

ambition to do this was clear from the beginning >> [unintelligible] >> i spent a fair amount of time and the president comes across frustrated. this is because he cares about the small people and we care about the small people. i hear comments that large oil companies are agree to do not care. that is not the case with bp. we care about the small people. >> [unintelligible] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> coming up, "washington journal" live with your phone calls and we will bring you live coverage of the u.s. house. they will be working on a small- business lending bill. in about 45 minutes, we will look at the war in afghanistan with congressman joe wilson. we will discuss the gulf oil spill with congresswoman kathy castor and assistant labor secretary david michaels on protecting the safety of those working in the cleanup effort. working in the cleanup effort.