applying it, diamond shears, failed to cut a clean edge on the pipe and the capt. device does not fit well. so ww know that we have problems, and we know this is difficult, because this is without precedent. and yet, you, mr. secretary, and the department you so ably represent, clearly have a mandate to see that the safety measures are in place, that the environmental decisions are correct ones. with those words, i welcome you here today. . . words, i welcome you here today. and i'd like to call on my very distinguished ra eed ranking me senator alexander for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you. welco welcome. i know secretary salazar very

well. my purpose here today is to try to be destructive and discharge those responsibilities in the best possible way. i agree with the chairman. i think accountability may be the area i would like to explore as we take time. i think about the commander of the navy nuclear sub, and how they've had no one killed, no nuclear incident since the 1950s, most people think it's because the commander can ruin his career, if there's a single accident in in a reactor. everybody knows who's on the flag pole. both in terms of the responsible party, such as the person doing the drilling and the regulator, who's on the flag pole. second i think we should explore whether a single regulatory agency, like the nuclear regulatory commission does for nuclear power, mightbe better than the multimissity of the agencies that we have.

i wonder whether an insurance program that voles all of the oil companies that might be drilling and sharing best practices and cleaning up, so you would have chevron and exxon not just setting on the sidelines watching bp, but in the middle of trying to do whatever they could. those are some of the questions i have. and as we hear more about the proposal to change the structure of mms, i share the chairman's question. we don't want to just move organizational boxes around, we want to make sure that whatever is done on an interim basis is consistent withhatever might be done long term. there's going to be an organic law passed. that will have long term consequences. and in this year's budget, we need to know what t cost is. because we havea specific amount of money for very

important projects all he way from the national parks to forrest fires, that we have to deal with. and this could be a very expensive change. and we need to understand what we're talking about. and know whether the amin station is going to request a sufficient amount of money to do what needs to be done in the interim, while we're waiting for the organic act to pass to create a long term structure. we welcome you, and i welcome you. now, one other question d like to ask, and maybe you can comment on it and i'll come back to it. i was struck by the data from the department of interior's report on may 27 about what an unusual event this tragedy in the gulf is. your data spill from the platforms over the last 30

years, total about 27,000 barrels, that's less than this oil spill or is producing every single day. in other words, over the last 30 years, there's been less oil spill than this produces every single day. the santa barbara spill was more than 30 years ago, it was in 1969, it was 80 or 100,000 barrels of oil in it total. that's a tragedy. this oil spill produces that every two days. so this is a real anomaly, it seems to me, and the situation where we have the gulf of mexico providing 97% of federal offsre production, nearly 7,000 active leases, there have been 50,000 wells since 1947 drilled. and we have this incredibly unusual event it would seem, producing more spilled oil every

day than all of the thousands of wells spilled in the last 30 years. that makes m think about judge feldman's decision, where he said are all planes dangerous because one was. are all trains, all mines, that sort of thinking seems rather heavy handed. i agree that the prudent thing to do, if you have a terrible plane crash, let's stop, let's see what happened. make sure it doesn't happen again. we don't stop 1.6 million people from flying every day after that, for an indefinite period, in the same way, the third of the oil that the united states gets from -- comes from the gulf of mexico, 25% natural gas. so i would like to hear from you duringhis testimony at me point. what you're doi is, you think

abo a moratorium, you think about taking the safety steps to make sure the economic consequences of a moratorium aren't mor damaging than the environmental consequences of the oil spill. thank you, madam chair. >> and i thank you, senator alexander. >> mr. secretary, we'll turn it over to you now. please take whatever time you require, and then we will hear from mr. bromwich. and then open the floor for questions. >> thank you, madam chair, and ranking member alexander, as well as distinguished members of this committee. let me say that, the way i look at this challenge facing the united states department of interior is that we -- there is a problem, and of obviously we have seen that problem and we have been living that problem, and working at it very hard since the deep ter explosion occurred on the evening april 20th. the president directed -- be

relentle and work on this matter until we get it resolved. secondly, our job is to make sure we are learning the lessons of this horrific incident which happened in the gulf coast, and we will learn those lesson. and we also say, senator feinstein and distinguished senators, that today i'm confident and resolute that we will get through this, and at the end of geing through this inquest, i see happening the creation of a catalyst that will have us move forward with a safer set of standards and enforcing mechanisms for oil and gas production. i see this as a catalyst for moving forward with a gulf coast restoration program that will finally bring about the restoration program that's so important. and hopefully we'll be able to join with all of you as we move forward on a conservation agenda

for the united states of america, because think that's one of the lessons to be learned there. secondly, i wanted to give you a very quick update. your staff has the latest information that we have, in terms the leak containment strategy. because from day one, it's been, let's fix that problem, let's stop the pollution, let's stop the leak,nd let's kill this well. for the last 24 the number of barrelsof oil that were picked up were 27,000 barrels, that's a new high and record for the amount of oil that's been picked up. by end of june, the additional mechanism that we have pushed bp into place will have the capacity of containing somewhere between 40 and 53,000 barrels of oil. and by mid july, the efforts of secretary chew, bp am be in a position where they will be able to catch between 60,000 and 80,000 barrels of oil if that

should be necessary. the exact flows are not yet known. we push for additional capacity, and we have been able to assist senator alexander, if other companies in the gulf coast identify additional options for expanded leak containment capacity. we now have identification of up to 90,000 barrels a day for leak containment capacity. short of that, ultimately, what's hoped for is that this well will be killed. the relief wells are down, very far now, the wells will start ranging operations that start to interface and try to find the location of the well, so the killoff operations will begin again, and that will ultimately control the source. that's what's going on with respect to the process of trying to fix the problem. we're also under the leadership of secretary innepaapolitano an admiral allen.

and those fighting the oil near shore and on the shore. we have 5,000 personnel deployed into the region that are working on it very hard. this subcommittee has oversight with respect to our budgets, you should know that the 43 national wildlife refuges in the gulf coast, and the seven national parks, including the gulf island national sea shore are some of the crown jewels of the united states of america. we have nearly 1,000 people who have been deployed there to protect the wildlife refuge, protect the national parks, work with our partners in the state to make sure everything is being done to protect those treasured natural resources. let me turn quickly, and most importantly to the issue that's before this committee today, and that is the bureau of ocean energy management, the minerals management service which has

existed by virtue of secretary loiters in office under president reagan. the minerals management service is no more. we have moved that agency into a new configuration now called the bureau of ocean energy management. and that bureau will be overseen by michael bromwich. i will say that responding to some of the questions senator instein raises concerning the mms and its functions, you put together the fact that we have the assistant secretary, who's the former prosecutor for the united states, the district of columbia, former inspector general, coupled with michael bromwich who has worked on a number of issues. you will see that what we are

doing is attacking the issues which have been front and center on the issues of corruption with mms. and i'm confident that with their leadership, with the support of this committee, we will be able to see the day where the bureau of ocean energy management can't have the standards and enforcement to be able to do the job that it needs to d it is frankly not a good thing that we have 62 inspectors, essentially in charge of overseeing 4,000 production wells in the gulf of mexico, and the pacific and up in alaska. that will have to significantly be expanded. we have in front of this committee for the last several years included significant additional requests for inspectors for the minerals management service, we will have additional requests for all of you as we staff up the bureau of

ocean energy management. let me finally say before i turn it over to michael. first, ethics have been important for the department of interior from the time i started there. we have issued ethics orders, met with the employees, we have ethics requirements. most of the conduct that the inspector general has looked at -- a major place of reform, which many of you saw and witnessed and asked questions about had to do with the new plans for theuter continental shelf. they're very significt and broad ranging reforms that we took on with respect to the new plan. many of you were participants and we had discussions with all of you on what we saw moving forward. we announced this at the ends of march, it was a major change from what we inherited when i came on board.

third, we ha moved forward to step up renewablenergy especially along the atlantic. we believe that is the new energy future for the united states america. and finally, the reorganization of mms, i have long believed that it is important to have organic legislation for the organization, simply because of the fact the commission is too important, it has a mission that first of all has to produce energy resources which fuel the economy. second of l, also produces a very significant amount of money for the united states of aerica, an average of about $13 billion a year. an agency that has that kind of important mission assigned to it, is also the kind of agency that should be backed by congressional legislation. so we welcome the opportunity to work with all of you as we move forward on that agenda. what i'd like to do is to have michael bromwich, who we

strongly recruited and we're proud to have on the job, he hit the ground running, is doing a great job, and has a lot of work ahead of him. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman feinstein and thank you for your kind words about my prior service. i enjoyed meeting with ranking member alexander, i have not had the pleare to meet with the other distinguished members of the committee, but i'm sure that ll happen soon. i was sworn in on monday, so this is my third day on the job, and i view this really as an opportunity to introduce myself to you, particularly the senators who i don't know. and to hear what your concerns and issues are with respect to e reorganization proposal. let me tell you a little bit about my background and what i think are the reasons why the president -- >> somebody should run us

through the reorganization proposal. >> i have been -- i have seen an outline of the reorganization proposal, it's not something i had the chance to study closely. i think the secretary will tell you, i am in t process of being briefed on it, and we'll have the latitude to adjust it as i see fit. >> senator feinstein, i'll be happy to do that. >> that's what this hearing is about. >> i will focus on that after my comments. >> i think my prepared testimony goes into various governmental experience that i've had that i think is relevant in law enforcement and in overreeing organizations, since i left goverent in 199, i've been in private practice and actually dealt with a numb of issues and institutions that were in

need of organizational reform, those included bing the independent monitor for the dc police department for six yea on use of force issues. i had just started a similar assignment with the virgin islands police department that i had to give up in accepting this job. in addition to that, i did a major investigation of the houston police department crime lab, and the job was to diaose and prescribe recommendations for fixing a range of problems that led to a number of bad outcomes, including wrongful convictions. in addition to that, i did a lot of work for the delaware department of corrections, looking at their program to provide medical and mental health care inmates and helping them bring their standards and practices up to snuff. so that's my background that i think is relevant. and the truth is, i knew relatively little about this ency until a couple weeks ago. and it was a request from what

secretary salazar and the president himself to take on the challenge of running this agency of revamping this agency, as chairman feinstein mentioned changing the culture of this agency. it was those requests that made me realize this is a challenge, a public service challenge that i really needed to accept. very briefl let me talk about two changes that have already occurred in the last three days. the first and the least substantive, is the name change as secretary salazar mentioned. the full name is the bureau of ocean energy management, regulation and enforcement, it's a long name. but i think it's important that regulation and enforcement are in there, because i think those aspects of the mission may not haveeen followed as closely, caefully and scrupulously as they should have, and i vowed to do in the ffture.

the second important change which i'm announcing today, i am creating a unit called the internal investigations and review unit. it is frankly modelled after a similar agency that i set up in the justice department, a special investigation and review unit which served as a s.w.a.t. team for me in addressing some of the most critical problems and issues that arose in the agency. it's that unit that did the investigation of the fbi laboratory. my 2.5 days on the job has shown me there is not that kind of investigative capability in my organization, and i think it's vital to create it, it's vital to create it both to investigate internal allegations of

misconduct, that is misconduct against people in my agency, but also to pursue with aggressiveness and diligence, allegations that the companies that are under the regulatory supervision of my agency are not doing what they're supposed to do, have violated the terms of their leases, and they have made false statements or engaged in other misconduct in order to acquire those. i think it's a very important capability, and i fel proud to have created it, secretary salazar, when i proposed it just the other day, immediately embraced it, and we're going to try to stand that up, absolutely as soon as possible. i realize i'm taking over this agency at a critical and challenging time. i look forward to the challenge and i look forward to working with all you as we move forward. >> thank you very much. we will begin with questions. the rounds will be five minutes. i will go back and forth between

the sides. so it will be myself, senator alexander, senator tester, senator collins, senator dorgen, senator dorkocski. >> all we have are two pages that look like this. >> let me first -- >> what we ha done is we've taken the mms and blown it up and broken up into three distinct units. the first of those is the bureau of ocean energy management, that will be the unit within the agency that would have the authority to do the resource detminations relative to the creation of the five-year leasing plan and engaging in the leasing process. the second would be t create a bureau of safety and

environmental enforcement, so that we are splitting up environmental and enforcement part of the organization from the functions of the department that are involved in the leasing part of the organization. so the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement, and thirdly, the creation an office that would be separate from that that would do the revenue collection. let me make two quick comments about that organization. what leads us to that organizational structure is that we believe that it's important to separate leasing functions from the eforcement functions, and also to separate the revenue functions from the enforcement functions as well. that's why we have created these three separate units. we are hopeful we will be able to work with you to move forward, to have these organizations staffed correctly. for example, within the bureau of safety and environmental

compliance, we believe we have approximately 380 people we could move into that particular part of the organization. however, we also recognizethat we need about 600 people, which would mean an additional 228 people to basically be able to do the inspections in the gulf of mexico, and to significantly increase environmental compliance and environmental enforcemenstaff. these kinds of numbers are the ones we want to work with you. so that we can make sure that at e end of the day, the environmental enforcement and the standards need to be created can in fact be carried out. >> let me begin with the technical stuff. mms currentlymploys 0 inspectors to look after 3800 platforms in the gulf.

the administration's budget request for 2011 has asked for six additional inspectors. now, that clearly is woefully inadequate. in addition to the numbers, there's a real problem with the relationship between mms and inspectors and the oil companies they're supposed to be inspecting. mr. bromwich and i spoke about that last month, as you well know and we know, the department's i.g. reported on the problems of inspectors at lake charles, louisiana taking meals and gifts from the oil companies. one inspector was even negotiating a job with an oil service company at the same time he was inspecting one o the company's rigs. so this speaks to how do you change the culture and where do you get people who are fiercely independent and able to carry out the job of inspection and

regulati regulation. how does reorganization fix that problem? >> we're not doing this because of cosmetic use, there's a problem and we need to fix it. and so we are going to do this with the request of this congress for a robust increase. you all know what the deficit situation is and what you've been dealing with. we have asked for a significant increase in the number of inspectors in the last two years, it's obvious that is not enough. we will be coming forward with the budget amendment, senator feinstein to be able to address these additional requests. and i have to ask, we are in a position senator feinstein, where we're moving forward with the reorganization, but i want to give mike bromwich an

opportunity to dig further about the issu you speak about. it's clear there's additional work that has to be done. michael will be working with us to review these organizational plans as we come back t this committee, we'll have a greater degree of comfort. >> before you ask your question, just so you know, the democratic leadership has said, go ahead, appropriators mark up your bills. the work is now beginning, sof you're going to submit something in addition to the six inspectors you have submitted, we're going to work within a very strict cap. so we're going to have to cut something else to do it. if you could get that into us quickly, that would be appreciated. >> we will work with the white

house and your staff toll make sure this issue is addressed quickly. >> on the need to change the culture issue. i think that is is the key. and i think it's a combination of leadership. i think it's that combined with making clear what the mission of the agency is in unmistakable terms. it's a matter of making clear that cozy relationships will not be tolerated. that people who are doing inspections an seem to pull back, that information gets to me, and i find out about people who are not doing their job aggressively, and there are consequences for that. now, i've already tried to start sending that message, but it's not going to happen overnight. i will need to visit field installations, make that point in person. i think creating this unit which i announced this morning, will send that message. it will take some instances of my making clear that i mean

business for the culture to start to change. >> thank you very much. >> senator alexander? >> thank you. do you plan to issue new moratorium on all exploration of oil in the gulf of mexico at depths of more than 500 feet? >> the answer to that is, yes, senator alexander, and we -- our point of view that we've taken as we move forward with the moratorium, let me explain to other in thes in the congress, we had a choice of essentially three. one is letting things go, if something had ever happened. some advocated we press the stop tton forever and never do any ore production or drilling in the outer continental shelf. the president and ihose the

positive way, to allow us to learn the lessons from the deepwater horizon explosion, deal with the issues of standards and enforcement, and also making sure that many measures that are supposed to be in pace to prevent this from happening again are actually in place. >> it's hard to disagree with pressing the pause button after such a tragedy. but the judge yesterday made a cogent argument, and your data, you said you hope by mid july, to be capturing 60,000 to 80,000 barrels of oil a day, or have the capacity to do that, which is two to three times as much oil that's been spilled in the last 30 years. how will you take into account as you develop a moratorium the possibility that a moratorium

will help create higher prices, loss of jobs. will cause the united states to bring more oil to our shores by tankers whh have a worse safety record than the drillers. will make us more dependent on foreign oil. i agree with the boss, but how can you deal with a terrible airplane crash -- we would find out everything we could about it, and then get back to flying. >> we will in the weeks and months ahead take a look at how it is the moratorium in place might be refind, and it might be that there are demarcations that can't be be made based on reservoirs for what we actually do know, the pressures and risks associated with that, versus

those reservoirs that are exploratory in nature, where you don't know as a company, but it is that you are drilling. the moratorium we will issue will include the criteria under which it is appropriate to take a look at the lifting of the moratorium. we will work with the president of the deep water horizon commission to get their views on when they believe it is appropriate for us to lift the safety button. we -- i'm always cognizant of the fact that we're in a dynamic situation. we know that conduct leading up to the april 20th accident on the rig was reckless conduct weapon we know we are not going to have a critical piece of evidence from the bottom of the ocean that can be thoroughly examined until after we get this

well killed. and the killing of the well is still some 30 to 60 days away. hopefully sooner, but we don't yet know. we continue to hear from engineers as michael come on board. we'll make whatever adjustments are appropriate. >> mr. secretary, on the question of accountability. i mentioned the flag pole theory when i was governor, i ask the whole cabinet to pass a bill, they failed. i put one of them on the flag pole and it passed the next week. collective respoibility is not always the way you get a result. there are 14 various agencies involved in the regulation of offshore drilling from the mms to coast guard, to the navy, marine fishery service. you're proposing to flip one of those into three. how does adding to the number of agencies increase the principle

of accountability of the kind the navy captain has on the nuclear reactor on his ship? >> the law which was passed decades ago by this congress, the outer continental shelf laws act essentially is what creates the framework for the development of the outer continental shelf. it's been continued through republican and democratic administrations. in our view, there's some flaws with respect to how that organization was created. the need for the separation of the environmental and enforcement function, for those that lease out the resource is one essential flaw that needs to be corrected. another flaw that needs to be corrected is, those who are making the money for the united

states at a rate of $13 billion a year, also need to be separated from the environmental enforcement function. that's what we will work with michael bromwich to honor the existing law of the united states with respect to the ocf. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here today, both you fellows. i'm goi to step away from the mms issue just for a moment. therare all kinds of documents that are flying around the internet that seem to be reinventing the issue around the interior department's memo. back in march you were here, and you told me there were no plans for monument designation in monta montana. nothing would move forward without substantial public input. but this hasn't stopped a few folks from continuing to believe there will be a national monument designation in montana.

i guess the first question is,do you know something i don't or are folks out there fanning the flames? >> i think it is folks fanning the flame. you know, senator tester, you were one of the key leaders in montana, pulling together the great american outdoors. our hope is,the president's hope is, that will launch the new centu of conservation, which this committee, many members of this committee have been leading for a long time. it's out of that process we move forward with a conservation agenda. it doesn't involve the heavy hand of government coming in, and imposing the monument authorities. so that is our message. it has not changed over time. >> what do we do to reassure folks in montana that there are no secret deals being crafted in backrooms for a monument

designation in eastern montana? >> on friday we had another listening session in maryland on america's great outdoors, i will be hppy to issue a statement befe that with respect to the monument issue. >> okay. back to mms, the reforms you instited for mms structure as you pointed out, i agree that for the protection of natural resources taxpayers shouldn't be collecting the funds or inspecting them. how will the restructure of mms impact wrong shore rvenue collections since mms currently collects their payments? will there be a change of procedures? or will it be under the current processes? >> the -- what will be the office natural resource revenue collection would be the entity that would have the responsibility for collecting those revenues, as you know, mms

has done that for both onshore as well as for offshore. that effort would be one that would be moved over to this office of natural resource collection. i hasten to add, that our proposal is one we have put together over the last -- really over the last year, put it down on paper over the last several months, it is important for mike bromwich. i am deliged to have him on board running the organization. i want his input on how best this organization can do the job that needs to be done. >> protecting america is critically important to both of us. not cutting corners is just unacceptable. this winter you released new leasing standards for blm, can you assure me this is not going to happen?

>> we have put bob abbey in place with blm. he has been moving forward with a great part of our reform agenda, including elimination of issues with respect to offshore leasing. and a whole host other things we have been working on. there are things we can do better. we're always willing to listen. >> in the arena of edge eggs, and mr. bromwich you talked about transparency and oversite. are there plans you have to put in place for mms? >> i have to do a careful review including what ethics standards there are p in place. if there are additional

enhancements, i'll consult with the secretary and put those in place. >> you talked about consequences for not doing the job. what do you think the consequences should be for folks who potentially wen't doing the job in this case? >> well, it depends on what they didn't do. if it's severe enough, they should lose their jobs. >> okay. >> thank you. >> if i may add to that answer. first you will know that from the inspector general reports dating back to january as well as more recentreports, really dealt with behavior that was prejanuary 2009. there have been actions taken that included criminal prosecutions. they have included personnel actions. with respect to this particular incident on the deep water horizon, i have asked the inspector general to take a look at the involvement of mms employees with whatever happened on the deepwater horizon.

i'm looking forward to getting that report. when we get that report we'll take whatever action is necessary. >> thank you for that statement, secretary salazar, aad i think the punishment should be severe. this is a major ecological environmental disaster, i don't need to tell you that. you know this, and people who weren't doing their job intentionally, assuming it was intentional need to pay the price. >> thank you, senator tester. senator collins, thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. >> dr. salazar, it's great to see you, even if it is under a difficult circumstance discussing issues that are absolutely critical. i want to follow-up on the point that both senator feinstein and senator alexander make. and that is, that just

reorganizing the mms does not deal with the essential issues of accountability and culture. senator tester was starting to get into those issues. i've read both the september 2008 i.g. report, and the report fr may of this year. and they both paint an absolutely appalling picture of an agency that is ripe with cronyism and corruption. the i.g. said back in september 2008, we're talking about very serious misconduct. my basic question is, are the employees who were cited for serious misconduct still workin for the department?

you mentioned that in some cases there had been criminal charges brought. but are you confident? can you assure us that allf the agencies, employees that were cited for serious misconduct, such as taking gifts, negotiating employment while they were still working with the federal government have been removed from their positions? or otherwise sanctioned? >> the answer to that, is appropriate action has been taken. some of them have been terminated, some of them have been referred to prosecution. some of them have been dealt with under the personnel system. the more recent report, which also det with conduct dating back to 2004, 2005, is a rent report in the last 20 or 30 days.

and are -- we've taken appropriate personnel action in terms of putting -- let me just say -- they have been put on leave without pay, and we're in the process of moving forward to determine what the appropriate actions should be taken, anif necessary, other kind of actions. >> what's alarming to me is the first report was nearly two years ago, and, yes, weave a subsequent report just last month that indicates the same kinds of problems in different offices, same agency. that means there was not a systemic reaction to the first report. i know you have a new director, mr. bromwich and those are

issued you're charged with. i think it's important to this committee to know specifically what actions have been taken, both to correct the culture of corruption, but also to deal with the individual employees. and i would ask that tha be proided. let me go on to a second issue. the homeland security committee also holds an oversight hearing to look at the coordination among the various agencieshat are responsible for reviewing the oil spill response plan. what we found is that current laws bystep the responsibily. the coastuard is responsible for approving the oil response plan for vessels. the mms approves them for

offshore facilities. the epa approves them for on shore facilities. there's very little exchange of plans or approvals among those three agencies. i was disappointed that there was no requirement for mms to share the plans with the coast guard, which is responsible for approving the vessel that's right over the well. shouldn't there be more coordination among those three agencies? shouldn't the plans be shared between the mms and the coast guard? >> the answer to that is, absolutely yes. that should happen. and there was, in fact, consultation. i don't know whether that

happened. but the answer is yes, it should have happened. we're looking with both of the inspector general reports, relating to a drug scandal. and the most recent report off louisiana, we're taking a look at those issues. i al have asked the inspector general to take a look at whether or not the ethics initiatives we took have changed the culture. so i've asked her to look at what is happening with these issues between january of '09 and w. second all that is a chge that i have given to mikebromwwch. it's a question you all have, how we're going to attack tis culture of corruption. it goes beyond just issuing ethics orderses. madam chair?

>> it does obviously go well beyond the issuing of formal ethics orders, it goes beyond training, although both of those elements are important. it's how you deal with the kinds of misconduct that you identify that appeared in those two inspectogeneral reorts. i read them as well. and it is shocking. absolutely shocking behavior. i hone, and i think it is not pervasive across the industry. some of which are already gone, the rest of which will be gone soon. there will be zero tolerance for corruption, coziness, et cetera. and we will work aggressively both through the i.g.'s office and the organization that i'm setting up to root out the ones

that shouldn't have been there to begin with, but regrettably were. it will be a sustained push, it will be making clear there will be zero tolerance for what has been tolerated in the past. there will be the encouragement of people to come forward with information suggesting corruption among others. in the short term, there may be more of these allegations that come forward. it won't happen overnight. i will ask for your patience on that. but i pledge to all you, i will work in a determined and aggressive way to get that out of this agency. >> thank you very much, senator collins. senator dorgen? >> thank you very much. two things i would say with respect to senator collins points. i think bh of the i.g. reports largely refer to a time period back in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

so that's important to understand. i think things have changed, i expect they have changed and if not, there are serious problems here. there was a shameful culture of corruption. we're talking about sex and drugs -- aside from that, incompetence and secret handshakes and so on. the rolling of heads, and i think when you heard from senator collins and senator tester, they want to know that those who were engaged in this are no longer on the public payroll, and appropriate and proper and tough action have been taken to make sure that there's a lesson for everyone who's serving -- this is a public service, and you have responsibilities. now, i wanted to mention those two things. let me mention one other, that is is the fractured responsibleability. you have eight different agencies that have a piece of this. on th other hand, it is congress that creates those

circumstances, i'm so frustrated with the defense department, because every single branch of the service wants to do everything. we have a responsibility for that fractured jurisdiction across agencies. yesterday, mr. secretary, i heard -- as i was listening to the rio going home -- criticism you for not moving fast enough, and then i heard criticism for you that you were overreacting. it seems pretty hard to win in those circumstances. i was thinking about this issue of the moratorium or "pause." in the context of all this blizzard language that's directed in every direction. i have confidence in you, i have served with you, i know u, and i have confidence in you. i know that you're working very hard to do the very best that

you can do. the easiest thing is to look in the rearview mirror. and i'm askingthis. let's assume it is now march 1st or february 1st. and you decide there have to be safety reviews, third party verifications. structural reform of mms, time out to inspect offshore rigs and so on. what do you think the retion would have been? there would have been an appaplectic seizure by people. i support offshore drilling. we get 30% of our domestic supply from offshore drilling. i assume we're getting to do this in a way that -- it's sort of like, driving a car. if the brakes aren't fixed, you don't drive it. you've done a moratorium, i hope it's more a use, so we can figure out how do we make sure the worst case will not be something we can't control or

can't deal with? i guessi've given you a number of things to chew on here. especially the qstion of over reacting. the criticism that you're not doing enough, my judgment, i've watched every single day what you're doing, you're doing everything humanly possible to address these issues. the criticism of overreacting and the kinds things you put in place, i assume had you done that earlier in year, there would have been a fire storm of prote protests. >> thank you, very much, senator dorgan for your kind comments. as i said at the outset of my opening remarks, there's a problem, we have to fix it, and we have to learn the lessons from it. the fact is, that when you think about over 40,000 wells drilled in the gulf of mexico, without this kind of a blowout, and some of those statistics senator alexander was mentioning earlier on. i think there was a sense of great safety and a complacency that needs tbe reexamined and

that's exactly what we are doing ow. at the end of the day, looking ahead, my sense is,that we will have a new set of standards. standards will not do it alone. we secondly, nee to have enforcement. and with respect to both of those, you're going to have a beefed up agency, and you're going to need to have the right kind of leadership to make sure that those standards are the best standards achievable and thatten forcement actually occurs. >> it's very hard to gaze into the future. no one would have predicted what we are now facing. if you would transport yourself to december 1st, where are we at this point with respect to this rig? with respect to the issue of pause? moratoriums, safety regulations, where do you see us? >> december 1st? >> well, the end of this year.

another five, six months. >> six months from now, at a minimum, i would see a revision in the moratorium because it is as the president has said, a pause button that we would have in place, the implementation of the -- of many of the recommendations that we issue to the president with respect to safety. i would see us moving forward with the new organization under mike's leadership to make sure that the issues all of you have raised are being addressed, in a larger sense. it is why i am so confident in the future. moving forward, we'll have a safe and environmentally protective program with respect to production of oil and gas in the outer continental shelf. i see us moving forward with a gulf coast restoration plan as part of america's great outdoors, which i think we will

put on steroids and see happen under the leadership of the secretary. i also see us moving forward with theonservation agenda, which you, the members of this committee have been such great champions of for so long. do you see new safeguards, regulations and froers? >> if you take a look at what we did with the outer continental shelf plan that we announced, we know that the gulf of mexico is where most of the known resource is. and so when you look at the different factors that are set forth, i very comfortable that the decision that was reached there was, in fact, the correct decision. but it's also important for us to make sure that we don't move forward with additional drilling until we know that it can be done in a safe way.

and that is what we are spending a huge amount of our time on right now, understanding from the national -- the best scientists in the world, including cretary chu, including the members of the national academy of engineering and others, to make sure that when we do move forward it can be done in a safe wa. >> thank you, senator dorgan. senator murkowski. >> thank you, madam chairman. as has been noted, these are difficult times, certainly. and the effort to restructure mms, i think we all have agreed is one that is necessary. we'll have an oppornity to have you before the energy committee tomorrow to discuss further that restructing. the comments i've gotten this morning relate to the

moratorium. the judge's decision yesterday, you have to admit, is pretty scathing. when he uses words like arbitrary and capricious in statinghat the ban exceeded federal authoriy, when he says that the report makes no effort to explicitly justify the more tore and goes on to say doesn't discu irreparable harm, it's a pretty direct and a tough statement. you've already affirmed that you do intend to issue yet another moratorium. i have to assume that it's going to be different than the blanket ban that you put in place, otherwise you're subjecting yourselves to another court coming back and saying that in fact other things were not

considered. now, you made some statements about -- and i will look to my notes here, but you said you're going to look to specific criteria in lifting the mortoria and make adjustments as appropriate. is it accurate for me to believe, then, that you are leaving some latitude, that in fact prior to the -- the termination of the moratoria, that the interior would look into allowing for leases to come back online when you've had an opportunity to review it, but prior to the end of the time period that has been set. did i read that correctly? >> two points, senator murkowski, if i may. with respect to the moratorium, i believe it was the correct

decision. i believe it's the correct decision today and with all due respect, the honorable court, we disagree with. so we are taking that decision on appeal. at the same time, it is important that this moratorium stay in place until we can assure that deepwater drilling can be done in a safe way. we're not there today, so we'll move forward with the executive authority which i have to make sure tha the moratorium does in fact stay in place. but when do you lift the moratorium, well, the president said and what i have said is we pressed the pause button. so as we moveorward and we learn from this disaster in the gulf, there may be adjustments that can be made. >> prior to -- >> i will -- >> prior to the exration of the moratoria? >> we will have more information

on that in the coming week and we will beure to she it with you and wth your staff, senator murkowski. >> let me ask you then, mr. secretary, because i think you undetand, not everybody understands, but there are distinctions when you're out in deep water you've got the exploratory wells, as e deepwater horizon was, there are five of those. there's 28 that a now subject to or were subject to this moratoria in the appraisal development phase. and in terms of risk factors, there is -- and again, those that ha -- as i understand, made the recoendation about a moratoria made this distinction that the risk factors are much, much different between a well that is in this appraisal and development status as opposed to

the exploratory when we don't know what the pressures are. we don'tnow what those unknowns are. are you, in fact, looking to make a distinction, rather than putting everything off limits and subject to a moratoria, or are you looking at the factors that actually contribute to risk and allow for those that are in development and appraisal phase proceed, not withstanding any moratoria that may be in place in deep water. >> senator murkowski, those are exactly the kinds of issues that we're looking at. there is a difference, drilling an exploration well, where you don't knoanything about formations, the pressures or any of geophysical factors you're contending with, versus drilling into reservoirs where you

already have that information. so we're looking at all of those issues. and at a point in time when we can have assurance to the american people that we can move forward safely we'll make whatever adjustments are appropriate. but i don't have a timeline for you today. >> madam chairman, i have some additional questions, i'm hoping we'll ha a second round here. but i would ask you, then, as you are looking to -- because it sounds that you are clear that you are planning on imposing again another moratoria ther i'm not certain whether there is any assurance that once this moratoria is complete that there is a process in place that will allow those who have been waiting to resume at the conclusion of that moratoria. we all know around here, six months may be six mons on paper, but in terms of their

ability to restart again, those are some of the questions i want to explore in a second round here. >> thank you very much, senator. senator cochran. >> madam chairman, thank you, and let me join you and the other members of the subcommittee in welcoming the distinguished secretary to our appropriations committee hearing. one thing that occurred to me when the moratorium was first announced was that it was overly broad if it was designed to suspend drilling and production of oil and gas from deep wells in the gulf of mexico when it in fact included a much broader definition of activity of exploration and production that captured natural gas wells that were in place, producing natural gas, without damage to anybody

anything and very, very important to the eney security of not just the gulf region but the entire united states. these are major national assets that provide important energy for our country. am i correct in assuming that most, if not all of those, shallow water by comparison wellare going to be permitted to go back into production some time soon, if they hadn't already? >> senator cochran, i appreciate the question and your leadership on these issues in mississippi. we are -- let me maybe take a w minutes and do a little broader explanation here. it was -- there is a very huge distinction between the safety recommendations that we received, that i delivered to the president and then my decision to issue the moratorium. they're separate and apart.

i received the safety recommendations, the president and i made the decision on moving forward with the pause button. secondly, it was our decision to move forward with allowing shallow water drilling to continue, because at the 500-foot level they can still be anchored to the bottom. it's still a place where the wellhead can be reached by divers, and those involved in the industry have told us that that was an important part that could move forward. so we have allowed that part to move forward with the requirement that some safety recommendations, some safety requirements we put in a notice to lessees be followed. and third, what i would say, senator cochran, is that it's important for all of us to remember, while this is a moratorium on drilling, that significant producti that has been built up over many years in the gulf of mexico continu

unauthored. there has been very little destruction in terms of oil or natural gas production from the gulf of mexico during the last 65 days. >> thank you, madamchairman. >> thank you very much, senator cochran. senator murkowski has ked, so perhaps we could have another round. very quickly, senator, i want to ask one question and make a brief statement. ishere, to the best of your knowledge, any failsafe technology to stop any leaking of a deep water drill penetration below 400 meters, or 1300 feet? and if so, what is that failsafe technology? >> well, the procedures and the efforts that are in place had multiple redundancies to stop this. that's why you've had 40,000

wells in the gulf of mexico whe you haven't had these kinds of similar problems before. >> my question, what is the technology that is failsafe that will stop a leak at this depth or greater depth? >> well, the technology that is there has to do with the components of the construction of the well, including the redundancies which you should never have to get to if it's done right. and that's the blowout preventer, which should be functional and which should operate. there are significant improvements, in my view, that can be made to the blowout prevention mechanisms that have to be required of industry. and some of those are addressed in the report. there may be others that we may be implementing. to your ultimate question, senator feinstein, can you ever do this with 100% certainty that you're not going to have another blowout? i don't think there is that kind of guarantee that anybody will ever be able to give.

we will live with some risk. >> i tnk you mistake me. i don't doubt that we can get there some day. to the best of my knowledge there is no technology today that can absolutely prevent and give the public the general assurance that nothing as dire is ever going to happen again. you look back in australia, that was new technology. that thing didn't blow up, but leaked. i don't think we're there yet. and what bothers me, and this is my statement, there are very powerful interests that want to proceed at all cost. and i don't think we should. i think we have a -- an imperative and that imperative is to see that the technology is in place before we drill, to see that it's monitored, to see that inspectors are not from the oil community but that they are truly independent, that they're

well trained, and that they have the authority to shut something down, that they can't wave an environmental impact report like bp. i think there's a whole litany of things that have shown that the path that we were on is a dire path. and i think you're going to have to be very strong to really change that. because i think for all intents and purposes, the pressure is going to be enormous to go back to business ausual. >> i agree with you, senator feinstein, that there are a litany of things that have to be done. and you know, when you go back and look day to day at what happened with this particular blowout, my own view, having taken a review of some of the preliminarynvestigations that have been done, is if there was reckless conduct that was involved, how do you police that reckless conduct? part of it may be what we are coming to this committee for,

saying we need approximately 250 additional inspectors to get the job done. >> you're asking for six right now, sot's a big jump. >> we have moved 10% increase i think over every year, but it is insufficient. i agree with you. it is insufficient when you're asking a group of inspectors to go and to do the job of inspecting the panoply of production facilities and pipelines, which are so crucial to this nation's national energy security, to believe that they can do the job. even if you take away the issues of corruption and the coziness of industry which must happen and which the zero tolerance doctrine we have in place, if you take that out of the picture, the fact is 62 people cannot do the job. >> i agree, and we will do the level best we can, mr. secretary, i assure you, of

that. and some of it, i don't know, might have to come through a supplemental. because we will likely have a cap on our budget. but we'll do the very best we can. there is no question as to the need and necessity. so thank you. senator alexander? >> thanks for this hearing and i look forward to discussing in more detail the proposals. just to go back to the moratorium question, just a moment, and i guessmy inclination, i will just speak for myself -- i won't compare mine to others. let's just say those of us who have raised questions about the moratorium, here's my view. nothing is 100% safe. there is a fellow we haven't heard much from named cass sun stein who made quite a name for himself balancing risks and the

cost to benefit for decisions that need to be made. i perfely understand the difficulty of saying, we've got a terrible tragedy here, let's see what we can do. we tried to figure out how we don't ever have that happen again and epa will take over that kind of regulation. %%al mine killed a number of minors not long ago in west virginia. we didn't stop mining coal but we took immediate steps to see if we could keep that from happening again. a natural gas plant blew up in connecticut but if an airplane crashes, we sometimes look at the model of the airplane or the type of pilot or training of those pilots. we don't say 1.6 million americans stop flying for six months because there are counter veiling balances. those here are higher prices,

lost jobs, tankers bringing the oil are more likely to spill oil in our history than offshore drilling, that we'll be relying more on foreign oil if we don't explore for oil here. and that you've testified that by mid-july you hope to be able to recapture twice as much everyday as we spilled in the last 30 years and this seems to be an anomaly. so i don't question the pause. i think a pause is wise. i would -- i would hope that in devising any other moratorium that you takento account the judge's reasoning and the counterveiling public interests to make sure the economic consequences aren't worse than the environmental consequences as a result of the moratorium. that's all that i'm trying to say and i suspt other senators. one other thing i'd like to ask

you, i'm trying to understand, is there not some ri that by splitting this agency up into three parts -- let's say mr. brown does a really good job of getting the culture right here, we're talking about 33 offshore drilling exercises, you've got 3600 production wells in the gulf of mexico. but let's say you get the culture right. isn't it possible you're confusing thins by dividing thins up by three? i mean, who's really going to be ultimately in charge? will it be the secretary, whether it's you or the next secretary in another administration? who do we look to to say, if another spill happens, it's my fault? and to whom do allhese people report? some assistant secretary, some deputy secretary or to the secretary himself or herself? >> these -- the configuration you have in front of you is in

large part based after the current configuration for the regulation of offshore oil and gas exploration and production in norway and the uk. but i asked the group of senior advisers including chris henderson in my office to do a concept for me on how we need to reorganize mms. they reached out to the ministers of energy in norway as well as the uk, and in those particular nations there was a reorganization that occurred after there was a incident that was -- a horrific incident for those nations. and so we are -- that was one of the reasons why we ended up with this organization that is in front of you. in addition, i feel strongly that it is important to separate

out what's in the organization, those who are involved in terms ofeasing the resource and those who are involved in bringing in on average $13 billion a year into the federal treasury from those who are involved in actually doing the inspection and enforcement and environmental compliance part. i think that's an important division that has to be made. as i said earlier in my testimony, mike brown will work closely with me and with other people who have been involved so that we tailor the organization closely and we'll work with your staffs to make sure the organization moving forward is the appropriate organization, organic legislation to be abll to do the important missions assigned to the department of interior through this agency. >> thank you very much. senator murkowski? >> thank you, madam chair.

secretary, in response to my colleague fom mississippi here, you made clear that a distinction had been made between the shallow water operations and the deep water. and you said that there were very huge distinctions in that shallow water, allowing the drilling to continue because of a list of factors accurate to the bottom, the like. i would again urge you, and it goes back to senator alexander's point, about also considering the economics as we look to other factors. ut when we're looking at risk factors, the is a distinction between the exploratory wells, the five out there, and the 28 others that are in that subsequent phase. if there could be a process that allows them to move forward, perhaps, just perhaps, some of what we're seeing in terms of

the economic devastation won't be as pronounced. and i think it is important that we look to those distinctio. and as i talk about the distinctions, i have to ask the question about the decision as it relates to alaska's offshore and shell's operations up there. as we know, their proposal was to explore in relatively shallow waters at a depth of no more than 150 feet. so clearly in shallow waters. so the question has to asked. if in fact we're allowing exploration to proceed in the shallow waters in the gulf, why are we not allowing offshore to proceed in the shallow waters in the north? i'm still trying to determine whether or not the alaska leases

are technically under this same moratoria that relate to deep water, or are they bject to a special delay of their own? >> well, senator murkowski, as you well know, i am very familiar with that effort based on conversations that i've had with you over the last year. our view is that there are a number of different issues that are important in addressing oil and gas development in the arctic. the science, number one, and number two, specifically with respect to the expiration wells you referred to is the question of whether or not there is the oil spill response capability that would be sufficient in the event that you would have some kind of an unexpected disaster the way that we've had with the deepwater horizon. so the pause button gives us an opportunity to look at the whole set of issues in the ocs and that will be one --

>> but how are we defining that pause? because if it is a moratoria brought about because of a decision made by the administration as a result of the deepwater horizon disaster, then there are funds that have been made available by bp to assist those displaced workers who would be subject to this moratoria. we've got about 600 people in the state of alaska that had planned on going to work right now. and those people are no longer needed in the sense of being able to do the supplying, do the training, be physically out there. but we don't know what our status is. all we know is that we have been put on hold. we don't know if the process to allow for the -- the appels

process that is under way with the air quality permits, whether that can be allowed to proceed so that when the pause button is then unhinged, shell will be able to move. there is an uncertainty that is in play in alaska that is o-- it's so indefinite and i think leads to confusion abouthe status. there can be no further movement until some signals have been given fom the administration. we just don't know what our status is. and so to suggest that, well, it's just a pause, what does that pause really mean to us in alaska? >> senator murkowski, you raise a very fair question, and let me just respond with two points. first, we are in a very dnamic situation in the midst of a

crisis that no one in this senate and no one in the executive branch ever anticipated we would be dealing with right now. we're trying to bring this crisis under control, and the most important thing i think that we can do is to do that and fix a problem and then to learn the lessons from that problem. that's wha the president has directed me to do. that's what we've directed our people in interior to do, and we will do that. secondly, with respect to the exploratory wells that you speak about for shell, frankly there is an issue which i think is apparent to everybody, and that is that the oil spill response capability is something that has to be taken a look at. and right now as you know, part of the reason why the gulf of mexico, in our mind, made the most sense in terms of moving forward with oil and gas production, is that is where you

have essentially the focal point of the infrastructure, the support of state governments. but in addition to that, that's where you had massive oil response capability that had been amassed there over time. we don't have the same oil spill response capability through the coast guard or anybody else in the arctic. so it's my view that the pause button is very appropriate for these wells. >> well, and at the time that the decision was made, i, too, said that we need to ensure the level of safety and assurance offshore in alaska. and said at that time it was reasonable to make sure that we had that level of assurance in place. what i'm asking today is for a greater certainty as to that alaska status. are we in a moratoria? is it a special delay of its

own? if that is the case and as i understand your comments at the time this moratoria was put in place, alaska was being viewed differently. but what we had asked for was that there be a press that would ensure that permits didn't lapse, leases didn't toll and shell would be able to have sufficient photos to do the redeployment, to make sure that all those assets that they're counting on for any knd of a response are able to be deployable. so if we're kind of in this limbo where we don't know when if, it's going to be very difficult to re-engage any level of operation offshore. so i'must looking for some clarification as to our status. the 600 people who are not working this summer as they had hoped are looking for some

clarification of status. and we're hopeful that with all the work that shell has done, all the scrutiny that they have received, not only from mms and every agency from the coast guard to the epa, through every level of the judicial process, that the plan that they have proffered and supplemented since the deepwater horizon spill will be one that works to not only provide the jobs and the resource we need, but to do so in a manner that is air tight when it comes to rponse and capability and capacity. thank you, madam chair. >> if you'd like to answer that quickly and then we're going to adjourn the hearing. >> happy to respond to it very quickly, and that is, the moratorium that is in place does in fact apply to the alaska

wells and to the exploration wells proposed to put into place, and that's because we need to have a greater level of certainty that the kind of tragedy unfolding in the gulf doesn't occur up there. and we will be working on it in the weeks and months ahead and we'll be working with you as well to make sure we're doing the right thing for the environment in alaska as well as for the interests that you and others advocate. >> thank you very much, senator [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] calle[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up tonight on c-span,

president obama announces the removal of general mcchrystal as commander in afghanistan. then, members of the senate armed services committee reacted to this. then, we hear from general david mcchrystal -- general david petraeus. on tomorrow's "washington journal," we will talk to the house armed services committee member todd akin about the decision to replace general mcchrystal as head of forces in afghanistan, and we will talk to the hon. minister. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> next week, watch the confirmation hearings for supreme court nominee elena kagan. watch it on the c-span networks and its c-span.org, and watch it

replay on c-span2. >> today, president obama announced he was removing general stanley mcchrystal from command of allied forces in afghanistan. this move came after a "rolling stone" magazine interview went general mcchrystal made comments. this is at the white house. >> good afternoon. today, i accepted general stanley mcchrystal resignation as commander of the international security assistance force in afghanistan. i did so with considerable

regret. but also, with certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in afghanistan, for our military, and for our country. i am also pleased to nominate general david petraeus to take command in afghanistan, which will allow us to maintain the momentum and leadership i do not make this decision out of any personal insult. stan mcchrystal as always carried out on orders fatefully. i have got great admiration for him and for his long record of service in uniform. over the last nine years, with america fighting wars in iraq and afghanistan, he has earned a reputation as one of our

nation's finest soldiers. that reputation is founded on his extraordinary dedication, his deep intelligence, and his love of country. i have relied on his service, particularly in helping to design and lead the new strategy in afghanistan, so all americans should be grateful for general mcchrystal's career in uniform, but war is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a general, and private, or a president. as difficult as it is to lose jenna mcchrystal, i believe it is the right thing to do. the conduct in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by commanding general. it undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system, and it erodes the trust that is necessary for our team

to work together, and my multiple roles as commander in chief led me to this decision. first, i have a responsibility to the extraordinary men and women who are fighting this war and to the democratic institutions i have been elected to lead. i have no greater honor than serving as commander in chief of our men and women in uniform, and it is my duty to ensure that no diversion complicates the vital mission that they're carrying out. that includes adherence to strict code of conduct. the strength and greatness of our military is rooted in the fact that this code applies equally to newly enlisted private and to the general officer who commands them. that allows us to come together as one. that is part of the reason why america has the finest fighting force in the history of the

world. it is also true that our democracy depends on the institution that are stronger than individuals. that includes strict adherence to the military chain of command and respect for to civilian control over that chain of command. that is why i believe this is necessary to hold ourselves accountable. secondly, i of the responsibility to do whatever is necessary to succeed in afghanistan and in our broader effort to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al qaeda. i believe that this demands unity of effort across the alliance and across my national security team, and i do not think we can sustain and unity of effort and achieve our goals without making this change. that, too, has guided my decision.

i am just told my national security team that now is the time from a bus to come together. it is not an option but an obligation. i welcome debate among my team, but i will not tolerate division. all of us have personal interests. all of us have opinions. our politics often fuels conflicts, but we have to renew our sense of common purpose and meet our responsibilities to one another and to our troops who are in harm's way and to our country. we need to remember what this is all about. our nation is at war. we face a very tough fight in afghanistan. but americans do not flinch in the face of difficult tasks. we persist, and we persevere. we will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to

destroy afghan society from within and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world. seminole mistake, we have a clear goal. we have gorda greg the taliban momentum. we are going to build afghan capacity. we are going to relentlessly applied pressure on al qaeda and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both afghanistan and pakistan to do the same. that is a strategy that we agreed to last fall, and that is the policy that we are carrying out in afghanistan and pakistan. in that effort, we are honored to be joined by allies and others who have paid the ultimate price with a loss of their young people at war. there was as big as the interests and values that we share, and this is fundamental

to the ability for people to live in peace and stability in the 24th century. general petraeus and i were able to spend some time this morning discussing the way forward. i am extraordinarily grateful that he has agreed to serve in this new capacity. it should be clear to everybody does so at great personal sacrifice to himself into his family. he is setting an extraordinary example of service and patriotism by assuming this difficult posts. let me say to the american people, this is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy. general petraeus is fully participated in our review last fall, and he helped design a strategy that we have in place. at his current post at central command, he has worked closely with their forces in afghanistan. he has worked closely with congress. he has worked closely with the

afghan and pakistan government. and with all of our program -- partners in the region. he has my full confidence, and i am urging the senate to confirm this for this new assignment as swiftly as possible. let me conclude that it was a difficult decision to come to the conclusion that i have made today. indeed, it saddens me to lose the service of a soldier who i've come to respect and admire. but the reasons the enemy to this decision was what determines the strength of our nation since its founding. so, once again, i think general mcchrystal for his enormous contributions to the security of this nation and to the success of our mission in afghanistan. and it forward to working with general petraeus and our entire national security team to succeed in their mission. and i reaffirmed that america

stands as one in our support for the men and women who defend them. thank you very much. >> now, reaction to the president's announcement from members of the senate armed services committee. we will hear from senators john mccain, lindsey graham, joe lieberman, and committee chairman, carl levin, and a senate confirmation hearing for general petraeus will begin no later than next tuesday. this is 40 minutes. >> here to rebut the last speakers.

[laughter] good afternoon. we are here as members of the armed services committee and as individuals well-traveled quite often to the region and have had involvements about iraq and afghanistan for a number of years. in fact, our involvement goes all the way back to right after the fall of the airport based in the middle of the night, meeting president karzai for the first time. we applaud the decision of the president of the united states to ask general petraeus to serve again in defense of our nation. we think there is no one more qualified or more outstanding leader than general petraeus to achieve successful conclusion of the afghan conflict. we praise the service of general

mcchrystal and thank him for his service to our nation and wish him well, every success in the future. we are confident that general petraeus'leadership will have a profound effect. we ight suggest that consideration be given to reuniting the crocker-petraeus team, although i am sure that ambassador crocker will never forgive me for saying that, since he is enjoying his retirement. there is a non-military side of this. relations between the ambassador and president karzai, whether there is sufficient civilian side of this equation on the ground, and we know that there is tough sledding ahead.

ahead. fearing for general petreaus will be the fastest -- a feeling for general petreaus will probably be the fastest. how concerned that we have whether that is etched in stone as the president's spokesperson stated, or whether it will be conditions faced, we feel very strongly that he's 50 conditions-faced, it has an adverse effect on your ability to succeed. that is a major concern and there's still of great deal of ambiguity of the fed issued a brief -- about that issue.

we have to send the message that we will do what is f -- whatever is necessary in order to achieve success for him if that means a longer period of time going increase of troops as necessary, how those factions -- and i would remind you fifth learn the fallujah administration -- a feeling of bush -- which stirred up for the surge when it was opposed of and if it is not any thing other than an honest diffence of opinion between us and the president of united states. the withdrawal of the trps must be based on conditions at the time, not an arbitrary date. >> because of general stan

mcchrystal is afraid for fighter -- is grave of war fighter -- brave for fighter, if present if president obama with a hard decision. it is his willingness to accept

demand in afghanistan, so i hope that the announcement that the president made today has taken a crisis and turned it into an expression by the president of his strong support for the strategy that he adopted after a thorough review last year and announced at west point last december, first, which was what happens in afghanistan is a vital national security interest to the united states. if it goes badly there, it will be very bad for us here at home, because that is the place, obviously, from which we were attacked on 9/11, so it was important to hear the president's talk about that, and to success in that strategy, and i think we have a higher possibility, i think, a probability now with david petraeus is in charge of achieving that.

there is one thing the president said today that i thought was very important. he talked about how important was that his team of the unified in pursuit of the strategy, he, president obama has chosen for afghanistan. he said he would always welcome internal event but would not countenance division publicly, and i think the unfortunate comments that appeared in the magazine article by general mcchrystal and his staff reveal what we have known, which is that there is not the kind of unity in afghanistan between our civilian and military leadership. in fact, there has been some unnecessary and i think harmful public discussion in the united states about central point of our strategy, including what the meeting is, what the u.s. troops

in afghanistan will begin to do or will not begin to do in july of 2011, so i hope that we have turned a corner here and every member of the team, civilian and military, will noo work with and behind the commander in chief in achieving the success that we need to achieve and afghanistan, and after the announcements of today, i feel we will achieve and afghanistan. >> well, this is a sad day in many ways, because general mcchrystal's korea is partly over, but our commander in chief, president obama, he did not and have much connection. it was beyond poor judgment.

it made it virtually impossible for the general to stay in his job, and as commander in chief, president obama did the right thing today by accepting his resignation, and that is sad. we lost a good general, but the president in my view had no other choice, because to keep him there would have blurred a line that served this country very well for a very long time, and those of us who wear the uniform have an obligation to keep our opinions to ourselves. when it comes to civil, military relationships. david petraeus is our best hope. if things do not change, nobody can pull it out in afghanistan. we are not doing as well as i would like. there is an uneven progress. the relationship between the civilian leadership and president karzai has to be

changed and repaired. this is a chance to start over. i would urge the president to look at this as a chance to put new people on the ground without old baggage, and if we do not change quickly, we're going to lose a war we cannot afford to lose. do i think we can win? yes, america can win. it's america loses, it is a nightmare that none of us will be able to live with very long -- is america loses. it undercuts the war effort, it empowers our enemy, it confuses our friends, and i think it needs to be re-evaluated. general petraeus said in an open hearing that he believes he had the ability to go to the president in july 2011 or earlier and say, "mr. president, things are such in afghanistan that it is not wise to withdraw troops. we may actually need more. he told us that he felt like he had the ability to make that

recommendation. my question for the country is, will the president listened to that recommendation? i would urge the president to keep on the table the ability to hear the general out, and if the general recommended we cannot withdraw to keep them as an option. if the president says, the matter what general petraeus may recommend, we're going to leave in july 2011, we will lose this war. >> he obviously did not use the same words, but it's that you all have the same sentiment about the frustration with civilian leadership in the obama administration. is that accurate? >> i think some of the comments that were made, attributed to, general mcchrystal and to members of his staff were inappropriate. there is a role for the military in our society, and that role is that you are not only that you

obey civilian leadership, but you respect civilian leadership. respect civilian leadership. and if you do not, then you resign. that is the way our society and that is the relationship particularly between the commander in chief and the military leadership. this is authenticated by harry truman's firing of general macarthur long time ago. yes, there is discontent -- but let me say, there is a lack of coordination and teamwork between military and civilian sites, but that the embassy and other areas, and that needs to be repaired. i think that is three clear. it is not the role of the military to make those comments. they are to except the chain of command. >> that article -- is important and the president got this point

in what he said today -- let me put it this way. the president went through a thorough review of afghanistan last fall. on december 1, he announced our policy. there were clearly differing camps within the administration about what the president should do in afghanistan. but the president is the elected leader. he is the commander in chief. he decided in december and announced in west point that is of vital national security interest of the united states to win in afghanistan. and to do so by employing the same counter insurgency strategy that general petreaus road and implemented for iraq. i'm afraid that there may be some in the administration who never fully accepted that decision by the president. they have continued by other means to suggest different policy. i think the president said very clearly, everybody in my administration has to get with

the program. it is the program and the strategy and the commitment to victory in afghanistan that the president announced on december 1. >> it was not just the military. according to our recent book, the fis president said a whole lot people are coming out in 2011, you can bet on it. that is not based on conditions. that is an assertion by the vice-president of the united states. that is what coerns us. >> and you have the secretary of defense saying, no way. that is not good when you have the leaders in the administration seeming to say different things. i don't know whether the vice president affirmed that ". >> when you say it's time to start over, it is time for eikenberry to go? >> i will leave that up to the

president. i want him to believe that he made the right decision by sending more troops and we are at a pital government -- pivotal point right now. the karzai government is the government of afghanistan. from my observation, not just from the rolling stone article, but there's a lot of attention that makes it very hard to move forward in a coherent fashion. and it comes to what the president had to back, -- had to act, the statements of the general were not only outside the norm, but they've put into question military insubordination of civilian control. letting a reporter from the rolling stone all your round is the first question. [laughter]

and these officers that are named, i understand you were warriors and you have been shot at in your brain. but the language used, the cavalier attitude, the disrespect -- even though you may have disagreements -- they were unacceptable. this is a low point for the armed forces in a very long time and i'm glad the president made this decision. and some other officers need to be looked out and they need to be replaced. >> some people are saying that petreaus is being set up for failure. >> i think our position is and we have repeated it many occasions that we have the right strategy. we cannot allow that strategy to be undercut by a firm date for

withdrawal which sends the message to our friends and allies and enemies alike that we're not there to we have a successful implementation of the strategy. >> you have to remember, the strategy that we're following in afghanistan is general petreaus is and general mcchrystal's strategy. you have to give them some latitude to look at that, add this are that. >> are you convinced that the president is committed to doing what is necessary to make that strategy work? given the pressure of a timetable for withdrawal, and given the fact that we talk so much about afghanistan. >> i believe that the president is committed to success. whether they have the proper policy, which means the

commitment to begin a withdrawal in the middle of next year regardless of the conditions on the ground, i hink that is a flawed policy. but the strategy is not undercut by that, i think there's a strategy that we can have a great deal of confidence in. >> i am not questioning the president's motives. he understands the consequences of failure infghanistan. is of vital national security interest in the net -- of the united states to win. he has said that. the problem is the policy enabling us to win. when the taliban sense around leaflets quoting members of the administration and suggesting to people in afghanistan after july, the americans are going to leave here, this enemy is seizing on this instance -- this inconsistency and uncertainty, and no matter w well motivated he may be, the policy is going to fail because the enemy is

emboldened and our friends are uncertain, and as john mccain says a million times over, you, not sound an uncertain trumpet that is my concern. the policy is going to lease -- lead to a freezing of momentum, people coming our w who are on the fence, and it will give this enemy a sense of purpo that they would not have. >> c we win win -- in afghanistan with karzai as president or to market an absolutely. his behavior has to do with his uncertainty with the length of commitment on the part of the united states of america. [unintelligible] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> well, good afternoon, everybody. i support president obama decision to accept general mcchrystal resignation. general mcchrystal has made significant contribution to our nation's security during his long and very distinguished career in uniform. we simply cannot afford distractions of this kind in the middle of a war. it has been clear in the last few days that there is no disagreement over policy between them and the administration.

for many reasons, general petraeus is a solid choice to take over in afghanistan. he provides strength, and he provides continuity, and, indeed, he was the architect of the counterinsurgency strategy. he literally wrote the book that said that strategy out. he supports the policy and the decision of the commander-in- chief that there will be reductions in our troop levels, in afghanistan beginning in july 2011. and he supports this because it is the essential way of getting

the afghans to focus on the need to transition to them for the responsibility for their own security. general petraeus made clear last week for the senate armed services committee is agreement with that policy, and the awesome made it clear then and reiterated it to me in my office today that what would be conditions based is not whether reductions began in july 2011 but the pace of those reductions. as to the timing of the confirmation hearing, on general petraeus i' nomination, it wille no later than next tuesday. we're going to try to do it as soon as we can. we spoke to general petraeus, and he thought that this would

be fine if it could be held no later than next tuesday. ok, let me open it up now. >> they strongly suggested that there needs to be a repaired relationship between them and the government. will they consider replacing the ambassadors? .

i have to hold up the hope that the fiction that exists will now disappear or will be dissipated with the new commander. >> there was some real criticism by the appellate democrats in the senate. senator clinton in the week -- and senator reid hall have been talking about iraq. do you think he has overcome all of that? >> i think he is a supporter of

the president's policy. he is the architect of a counter insurgency strategy. abner -- i have not heard those comments. these events happened very quickly. i have not heard anything like that. yes? >> do you think he is the right to pick at this time given the differences in the field between iraq and afghanistan? >> i would give you perhaps to three reasons. -- two or three reasons. he knows counterinsurgency strategy better than anybody he wrote the book on it. it has been put into effect in afghanistan. he has proven that he can successfully carry out such a

strategy in a different situation than afghanistan. it is less on force and force and then it does on getting and winning the support of the ppople and protecting the people. to do that not just with your security forces but by winning their support through true government as well. he is a proven entity. the fact that he reflex that kind of experience and strain is -- reflex that kind of experience in strength is important. there cannot be that kind of gap in a war. there cannot be won general to leave without the next one being ready to take over. >> republicans were very complimentary of the present decision on the hiring of general petraeus to take over but will say that the date of

withdrawal is good to undermine the whole effort to because the talent and will wait it out. how do you respond? -- the taliban will wait it out. how do you respond? >> general mcchrystal and general petraeus and secretary gate have supported that decision. the field -- the feel the only way you can get the afghans to focus on the need to take responsibility for their security is if they understand in afghanistan at the leadership level that this is not an open ended commitment. there is a long-term commitment. there should be. it is not an open ended commitment. it now is not that you will continue year after year to rely on american troops to provide you the source of security. that has got to change. it can change. the afghan army is the most

respected national institution in afghanistan. this is not sure of the afghan police. it is dutch for the afghan government. it is true with the afghan army. there is no reason given the size of the army that is able to take the lead according to anyone analysis that they should not be in the leak in canada heart. i have made that point repeatedly. -- in kandahar. i have made the point repeatedly. i have been saying that. and afghan army needs to be the ones. now we will be supporting the troops and trying to do everything we can to have this policy succeed. the only way we can succeed in afghanistan is it the afghans understand that the principal responsibility for their own security is shares in nat hours but the -- security of theirs is

not ours. according to general caldwell who's the head of the training effort in afghanistan, there was an awareness when the president set that date to begin production of our troops. there was an awareness in the afghan leadership that they better get going. there was an increase, a surge, in recruitment in the afghan army according to general caldwell. he said the reason for that was because the afghan leaders understood that this is not open-ended. they got on the stick. they got on the phone. they started to work in different ways they could stimulate recruitment. recruitment jumped dramatically. we pressed general called will,

are you saying these young men+ in the countryside were listening to the speech at west point? he said, no, that is not my point. my point was that the leaders of afghanistan and got the point that they better get moving. they did. it had an impact right there in terms of recruitment. it is very important that we have a long-term commitment to afghanistan. i very much support that. it shall not be that the principal source of their security is the continuing large presence of american troops. that is why july 2011 date is a critical part of this policy. it is critical that you have a commander who support the policy and you do with the general petraeus and general mcchrystal, by the way, you i asked specifically whether it was his own personal opinion that it was

the correct policy. not that he supported but agreed with it. to your petraeus also agrees with this policy . what happens if you change your mind? what did he think there is more troops needed? general petraeus said it would be my obligation to tell the president that i had changed my mind that is not where general petraeus is. it has not been word general mcchrystal has them. it is not for secretary gates is. nothing is etched in stone. the president could change his mind. that is the decision of the commander in chief. it is agreed with the by the commander in the field. that policy is what is the key here. not the personalities that we have seen over the last few days. the policy is critically important. >> it sounds like you are seeing

what republicans are saying that you are agreeing that conditioned on the ground could dictate a change in that july 2011 date. >> the decision is made. where would to start reductions in july. what happens -- can the president change his mind? he may decide to go the other direction. he may decide to do it more quickly. a decision has been made. they agree with that decision. based on the projection of what the conditions will be in july 2011. their best estimate. it is decision. it is not to go. can anyone change their mind? that is a given. that does not mean that they do not support that policy. they do. it is as clear as you can make a decision.

the president of the united states has made a decision. can he change it? of course. in someone disagree? of course. that does not mean that there has not been a decision of the commander in chief that they agree with. that is the decision. that is the order. ok? i think it is important that everybody understand that. most have never agreed with that. they do not accept what i believe, which is the reality that the only way we will succeed in afghanistan is if the afghans take responsibility for their own security. the people of afghanistan respect their army and most of them do not want us there. there were a group of elders that spoke to us sitting in a dusty room in kandahar -- i ask the, what do you want this to

do, stay or leave? they said we want you to train our army and leave. that is what they want. >> senator mccain said it may be the fastest confirmation hearing in committee hearing. -- history. how long as you think they will be taking a vote on petraeus? >> hopefully come if they have the quorum we could take a vote theoretically the same date as we have a hearing. we do not have to wait for nomination papers. there is a precedent that you have a hearing before you actually get the papers. you cannot have a confirmation that the nomination of papers being here. if we are ready to go by next monday and those papers are not here, we are going to go no later than tuesday. >> the whole senate could not confirm? >> that it clear they have to

get the paper. i expect to get them by monday. >> what do you expect from the other members? >> the issue which i raised with internal petraeus at the last hearing and i very much interested in is the -- to what extent will the afghan army be in the lead in kandahar? that is critically important. there is a greater chance for success of people in kandahar if they see their army has been in control. it is their army that is taking the lead. rather than outsiders taking the lead. i am impressing our generals. i pressed general petraeus last week on this issue. it is something i have been focused on. that will be the main point that i will be talking to you about.

obviously, we will want to hear his statement relative to the strategy involved. when will the troops be completely index anything he can share with this on plans for kandahar. i am going to try to give specific umbers of how many afghan units will be in the lead in kandahar. the more units of afghan in the lead, the greater chance of success we have with the acceptance by the people and against the taliban. >> this has been thrust upon you. is it an opportune time to be reopening debate on afghanistan and the july 11 withdrawal date? >> this is a democratic body. it is always appropriate to debate policy, i believe.

our troops 0 everything -- where the best equipment support. they are also owed the best advice that we can possibly give, the best spots the we can possibly have that will lead to success. they are entitled to that. i have no problem with that kind of debate. i did not have a problem last week. i could be owed that to our troops. they expected. they know the american people support them. this is a huge difference from vietnam. the truth know the american3 the difference is on policies will be argued and argued with our policy makers. but we are one to support the troops. as long as they continue to feel and sense that, i have no problem whatsoever about a debate over this issue.

u.s. not had a chance? >> -- who has not had a chance? >> the spec the senate to vote on the confirmation? >> the earlier the better. i would hope that we could get this done. i'm confident we can get this done. i have a high degree of confidence the we can even get this done the same day that we have the hearing. we on the original petraeus. he is in front of us again. we all know him. i do not think there will be anybody who says led told of a vote until we get a question answer. if you want continuity, that is number one. i cannot believe anyone will take the position that we do not have any time. we know him so well. we know how essential it is that

we have continuity in the field. let me take one more question for the >> -- question. >> what is the decision on the timing? >> it does not relate to cave in. -- to elena kagann it is that we have advocated -- adequate attendance. i hope my colleagues will not insist on that. traditionally, we do have advance questions for the record. it is purely and logistical issue. he said reports anytime tuesday or before. i have not had a chance to talk to secretary gate. >> did you get any sense of how he feels and how unexpected it is?

anything more personal you can share? wha>> the present aston to take irresponsibility. i did not want to probe inside his inner foughthoughts about w the difficulties there might be. i am sure this represents a significant change in his life and i admire him and others that respond to that kind of call from the president. i do not even think he had a chance to speak to his wife. i think he knew what the answer would be there as well. it was just responding to his sense of duty not as an opportunity.

what he needs to do -- he responded very positively. >> [inaudible] >> the earliest time would be monday. we are calling to do it as quickly as we can. it'll be tuesday or before from th. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> learn more about general stanley mcchrystal.

you can do it at the c-span bdo library, free on your computer any time. it is washington, your way. >> what the confirmation hearing for elena kagan live on the c-span network and at c- span.org. see replay's every night and 9:00 eastern at c-span2. to learn more, read c-span's latest book. it provides unique insight about the court's available in hardcover and as in e-book. >> not a hearing with general david petraeus , currently the head the central command and to whom president obama has made as general mcchrystal poses replacement in of afghanistan. this hearing is 45 minutes the th.

>> we are glad to welcome back our witnesses this morning. we resume our hearing on the progress in afghanistan pitt. me reiterate this committee's great appreciation for your service, sacrifices, that you and your family's make along the way. the demand of your positions are great. you carry it out with excellence. thank you to you both. general petraeus, you are more than able to proceed yesterday morning. l petraeus, you were more than willing, and more than able, to proceed yesterday morning. it was my abundance of caution that led me to adjourn the proceedings until this morning. before i turn to senator mccain, who still has a bit of his time

remaining, i understand that general petraeus has a short statement. >> well, thanks, mr. chairman, senator mccain, members of the committee. again, thank you for the opportunity for a redo hearing after i demonstrated yesterday the importance of following my first platoon sergeant's orders 35 years ago, to always stay hydrated. i'll try to remember that in the future. fact my team provided me this nifty camel back to help me remember it. i pointed out that the committee provides water, and i do thank the committee, as well, for the chocolate chip cooes that were in the anteroom before the session. if i could, mr. chairman, before the questioning resumes, i'd like to ensure that my answers to questions by you and senator mccain on the july 2011 date are very clear. as i noted yesterday, i did support and agree at the end of the president's decision-making process last fall with the july 2011 date described by the

president as the point at which a process begins to transition security tasks to afghan forces at a rate to be determined by conditions at the time. i also agreed with july 2011 as the date at which a responsible draw down of the surge forces is scheduled to begin at a rate, again, to be determined by the conditions at the time. as i noted yesterday, i did believe there was value in sending a message of urgency, july 2011, as well as the message the president was sending of commitment. that the additional substantial numbers of forces. but it is important that july 2011 be seen for what it is. the date when a process begins, based on conditions. not e date when the u.s. heads for the exits. moreover, my agreement with the president's decisions was based on projections of conditions in july 2011, and needless to say,

we're doing all that is humanly possible to achieve those conditions, and we appreciate the resources provided by congress to enable us to do that. of course, we will also conduct rigorous assessments throughout the year, and as we get closer to next summer, as we do periodically in any event, to dermine where adjustments in our stragy are needed. and, as july 2011 approaches, i will provide my best military advice to the secretary, and to the president, on how i believe we should proceed based on the conditions at that time, and i will then support the president's decision. providing one's forthright advice is a sacred obligation military leaders have to our men and women in uniform, and i know that that is what the president expects, and wants his military leaders to provide, as well. beyond that, mr. chairman, in response to some of your questions yesterday, i want to be very clear, as well, that i fully recognize the importance

of afghan security forces leading in operations. indeed, the formation of the nato training mission in afghanistan, the many initiatives it is pursuing, and the vastly increased partnering ordered by general mcchrystal are intended to help the afghan forces achieve the capability to take the lead in operations. to that end, i think we should note that afgha forces are in the lead in kabul and in a number of other areas and missions. and they are very much in the fight throughout the country. so much so that their losses are typically several times u.s. losses. in short, our afghan comrades on the ground are indeed sacrificing enormously for their country, as are, of course, our troopers, and those of our isaf partner nations. thank you. >> well, thank you very much, general. and i am glad to hear of you support for that july 2011 beginning of u.s. troop reduction decision. since i continue to strongly

believe that it is essential for success in afghanistan for everyone to understand the urgency for the afghans to take responsibility for their own security. now, this morning, after calling upon senator mccain to complete his questions, i'm going to be calling on senators for questions in the early bird order that was established yesterday morning, as i believe that we notified our -- all of our members' offices yesterday afternoon. senator mccain? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and we were interrupted probably at the most important pnt of my comments yesterday, general pet rayious, when i said i considered you one of america's greatest heroes. in case you missed that, i'll repeat it. >> it was overwhelming, sir. >> i still believe that with all my heart.

and i appreciate the statement you just made, general petraeus, and i think it's very helpful and i hope that it's heard in the oval office and in the vice president's office. because your statement seems to contradict what the president of the united states continues to say, what his spokesperson said that july of 2011 was, quote, etched in stone. that continues administration officials to be saying that july 2011 will begin the withdrawal. according to what is probably trash journalism, vice press biden said in july of 2011, you're going to see a whole lot of people moving out, bet on it. so, it would be very helpful. your sentimes vice president, the president's national security adviser, and

others. and right now, general, we are sounding an uncertaitrumpet. to our friends, and our enemies. they believe that we are leaving as of july 2011. i could relate to you anecdotes all the way down to the tribal chiefton level in afghantan. and they -- it seems to me that organizations and countries and leaders in the region are accommodating to vat eventuality and that does not bode well f success in afghanistan. so i guess it's more than a comment that i made -- an elaboration of the comment i made yesterday. if we sound an uncertain trumpet, not many will follow. and that's what's being sounded now. and that's one of the reasons why we see some of the events

taking place that are in the region. not just confined to afghanistan. so i know that i've used up most of my time as chairman, maybe general petraeus would like to respond. >> senator, first of all, i think july 2011 is etched in stone, but, as i ted to explaiit there as a date at which a process begins, that is based on conditions, and that i think was explained clearly at the speech at west point by the president, which i was privileged to attend. beyond that, as i said yesterday, i don't think it's productive, obviously, to discuss journalistics accounts of oval office conversations based on second and third-hand sources. other than to say that i think it is important that folks should know that those are not a complete account. but i will leave it right there. what i have tried to explained today is my understanding of what july 2011 means.

and how it is important, again, that people do realize, especially our partners, especially our comrades in arms in afghanistan, and in the region, that that is not the date when we look for the door, and try to turn off the light, but rather a date at which a process begins. and if i could, i'd like to ask the undersecretary, perhaps, if she wanted to provide some insights, having participated the process, as we. >> thank you very much. i think general petraeus has characterized the date accurately. it is an inflection point. it is a point at which the end of the surge will be marked, and a process of transition that is conditions-based will begin. the president was very careful not to set a detailed time line of how many troops will ce out at what point in time because he believes in a conditions-based process. and he's said that over and over again. on the issue of whether or not

afghans understand our commitment, i think one of the things that we did in the strategic dialogue we had recently with president karzai and 14 members of his cabinet was to focus on the long-term commitnt of this country. to the afghaneople and to afghanistan's development. we talked about long-term security assistance, lonterm commitment to build capacity, governance, development, and i think that everyone that walked away from that with no questions in their mind about the death, and enduring nature of the u.s. commitment to afghanistan. so i think that -- that has to be important context in which this conversation happens. >> thank you, madam secretary. we don't live in a vacuum here. i had conversations with him, as well. i've had conversations with leaders throughout afghanistan and the region, and that's not what they're telling me. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. senator lieberman?

>> thanks, mr. president, and welcome back, general. it's great to see you looking good again. your recovery time was very impressive yesterday. i thought it was at world cup levels. and the coach may want to add you to the team roster befe slovenia later in the week. i thank you both for your service and your leadership. i want to say at the outset that as you both said yesterday in your opening statement, in previous appearances before our committee, you've made clear that things would get worse before they got better in afghanistan. and unfortunately, that's exactly where we are now. but to me the important point here, and i want to go back to that december 1st speech by president obama at west point, we're talking about the deadline parts of it. i want to come back to tt in a minute. but the president made a very strong case there, expressing his decision that the outcome of

the war in afghanistan was a vital national security interest of the united ates, and if it -- if it went badly, the consequences for our security, american security, were disastrous. and to me, that's the -- that's the most important point. we know from pvious experience that -- tha counterinsurgencies take time. i think the key now is to make sure that we've got the right strategy, that it's sufficiently resourced, executed with decisive force. and as important as anything else, that we give our war fighters, and the state department personnel on the ground, the time and patience to achieve the strategic national goal that we have in succeeding

en in afghanistan. and that's -- i say that to us here in congress, as well as to the american people. general petraeus, i think an important part of that is the clarification you made just now about what the july 2011 date means. it's not a deadline for withdrawal. it's not a deadline by which we're going to pick up aad go out. it's a goal. and i wanted to stress, as you did very clearly here today, notwithstanding anything that we may have read, and what my dear friend and colleague from arizona has described as trash journalism, or maybe tra journasm, the fact ishat what happens on the ground -- what happens on the ground, at that time will determine whether we with it draw any troops from afghanistan in july of 2011. obviously we hope we'll be able

to. i believe that it's important for the president to make that clear, at some point soon, because notwithstanding all the clarifications that followed from him, and secretary gates, secretary clinton, the two of you, and our conversations with people in the region, that date is being read as a date at which the united states is going to begin to pull out, regardless of what's happening on the ground. so, thank you for your clarification of that this morning. secondly, i want to ask this question. and some of us on the committee were talking about it afterwards. it's been a run of bad reporting from afghastan over the last couple of weeks. marines took marja but the taliban is fighting back. there's been beheadings, and targeted assassinations of people who worked with us. general mcchrystal announced

last friday that the offensive in kandahar is now being delayed. and yet the reports that you gave in your opening statements yesterday were quite upbeat about what's happening i afghanistan. and i fear there's a gapetween the tone and the message that you gave us yesterday, and what we are reading in the media about what's happening. and i wanted to ask you, address yourself to that gap, because that gap can begin to erode the support that you need from members of congress and the american people in the months ahead. >> senator, i think y've raised a vy important point. and thats the importance of having measured expectations. the conduct of a counterinsurgency operation is a roller coaster experience. there are seacks, as well as

areas of progress or successes. it is -- it is truly an up and down, when you're livingit, when you're doing it. even from afar, frankly. but the trajectory, in my view, has generally been upward, despite the tough losses despite the setbacks. when i appeared before you some months ago for the posture hearing, a coalition soldier could not have set foot in marjah. i did that just, i guess it was a month and a half ago withhe district governor. there wasn't a district governor at that time. there is gradually, again, the expansion of government activities, in the form of schools, in the form of the assistance to revive markets. and in the form, even of nascent judicial systems, if you will, rtainly that are tied in to local organizing structures, as well, which is very important.

we did the same in nadi ali. in kandahar, bought bread in the market down there. yes, i had security aroun me, but yes i had hundreds of afghans around me, as well, and bought the bread directly from them. sat there, chatted with them while we ate it. again, this is an up and down process. and that defines the experience of counterinsurgency. where there's no hill that you can take and plant the flag, and then go home to a victory parade. rather, progress is almost the absence of something. i remember in iraq, when all of a sudden i realized we were making progress, it was, we were hearing less about a certain activity. say a car bomb or a suicide attack. and all of a sudden we had expanded our forces into an area. the iraqi forces were starting to stand up in certain areas, as is the case, again, in certain areas of afghanistan. so i think it is, again, essential that we realize the

challenges in this kind of endeavor. it is also essential that it is both the undersecretary and i noted, that people do realize there has been progress. but there clearly have also been setbacks. beyond that, if i could just underscore what you said about the designation as a vital national security interest. for one who taught international relations for a period, that is a code word. that is a sign of commitment. that's a rhetorical statement that means an enormous amount, and again, i appreciate your mentioning that. because it does highlight what i was discussing earlier. >> did you want to add something, secretary? >> i would agree with what general petraeus said about counterinsurgency campaigns being a roller coaster ride. but the overal troj ektry is moving in the right direction. the road is going to be hard, there are going to be times when we take one step back and we'll take two steps forward.

the one thing i wanted to give as an example is i do think that threporting on t so-called delay in the kandahar campaign has been overplayed. we talked a lot yesterday about the importance of afghans taking the lead. i think we owe general mcchrystal a degree of -- a great degree of operational flexibility. what's happening in kandahar is he's taking more time to shape the operation. the campaign's already begun. the shaping is happening now. and the shura that president karzai conducted on sunday was very importa for him to step up and take the lead, the ownership, of what's going to happen in kandahar. and so, if that means delaying some aspects by a little bit of time to make sure that that afghan ownership and leadership is in place, then, you kn, we should all be supporting that. and that is not any sign of

failure at all. it's a sign of good counterinsurgency strategy. >> thank you both. >> if i could, senator, we probably should distribute what was published president karzai's talking points for the kandahar shura. because it really makes a number of these points, and this is a president who is acting as a commander in chief. >> that would be very important, thank you. >> thank you senator lieberma senator imhoff? >> i thank you mr. chairman. madam secretary, just as a suggestion, i share the concern of both of the previous questioners about the exit strategy, about a date certain, and i was relieved when the president made his speech, i go es it was -- anyway, just as we have done in iraq, we will execute this transition, responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. well, that's a position that i

wanted him to take, and i was relieved to hear that. the problem is i've only heard it once. i asked staff the meeting yesterday to go back and check and see if they've seen any emphasis on that by the president. i would recommend that that be done. that he keep saying that, and that administration does it, and certainly general petraeus and others. because that clarifies it, and makes it clear. but without that, only having said it once, i think there's a little bit of a problem there. let me ask you a question general petraeus. and you've heard me talk about this before. and you know that i have a very strong feeling about the progra you've talked about it in your opening comments. we had the circ program in the cinchate that came from the president was at $1.3 billion. and this comprised of $200 million in iraq and $1.1 billion

in circ. this committee and i respect them for doing what they thought was the right thing, i disagree with it, has lowered that so that it takes the amount that goes to afghanistan from $1.1 billion down to $800 million. now i'd like to ask you, your feeling about that, and how valuable is the program? and how would you use it? then the second part of that question is, you had said this, madam secretary, that the mcchrystal needs more operational flexibility. i think we maybe need that in the circ program. in talking in my last trip over there, what needs are there that can come from the program, something that can be done fast would be power stations, grid, dam projects, however this has restrictions due to the statute so the money can't necessarily be spent on this type of projects. so the second part of the question would be do we need to change the language, either one

of you, and i'd say basically you general petraeus, to be able to accomplish these things that people in the field told me we should be spending it on. >> senator, thanksor that. first of all, the president actually has described what you've talked -- what you've quoted him on in a number of different occasions. and i'd come back to the west point speech in particular, where these very important words responsible draw down were used. that, just aostike vital national interest that has been a code word for those of us who went through the iraq policy review at the end of which the president announced the responsibility drawdown, and as you'll recall lengthened the time over that which was expected earlier. and we are on the process of doing that and touch wood, we think this is -- it is on track. and it will be at the 50,000 number by the end of august, by the way. with respect to the circ for

afghanistan we do need the full amount. it is very valuable. we now as i mentioned in my opening statement yesterday, have the inputs just about right. certainly another 9,000 troopers to get on the ground and some of our nato partners, as well. but as we get everybody in position, as we get them out performing their tasks and trying to wrest the initiative from the taliban, take away their sanctuaries and capitale on the serve is critical to that process. now, someone my ask well how come the execution rate, the obligation rate this year so far is low. in part because we're just building up, still, again. we actually are doing many more projects, actually lower cost is another issue. but beyond that, we do, indeed, have projects that are stacked up right now. we just have submittedthem, in fact, and osd is working on this. and i'll let the secretary talk about these projects for

electricification, in particularly, in the kandahar greater regional command south and regional command east areas. >> senator, let me just echo, we ink that circ is a critical counterinsurgency tool. we would urge the economity to consider restoring the funding that was removed. in the specific case of the electrical projects in kandahar. it's a very critical element of the fight. we think it directly impacts the population that we're trying to protect and win over to support, the isaf and the afghan government. the projects have been developed in close coordination with a.i.d., with a bridging strategy that would eventually hand off to longer-term development efforts. centcom has submitted these proposals. they're being reviewed quickly in the office of the secretary of defense and we'll be making a recommendation to the secretary very shortly. we do not judge at this point

that the language needs to be changed. our reading of the language and those of our lawyers, our trusty lawyers, suggest that the flexibility is there to do this kind of thing. >> okay. we're running out of time here. i would only suggest that this is information i got from the field that there are things that we could use that we are restricted from using, so perhaps for the record, you could elaborate a little bit, both of you, on that, and maybe send us something. i'm running out of time here. let me just mention one of the things that is -- i have a hard time answering when i talk to people. they talk about, well the surge was successful in iraq. the surge, howeve in iraq, we had ended up with close to 165,000 troops. in a period of time of 18 months. now we're looking at a surge that might be about 100,000 troops, and talking about nine months. now, considering that afghanistan is about twice the size of iraq, this disparity is hard for me to describe to

people why this number will work in afghanistan when it took so much more in iraq. general petraeus, any thoughts i can share with these people? >> i do, senator. thank you. first of all with respect on the timing of the actual surge in iraq, we had all of the surge forces on the ground by end of june, july in there and we actually began to draw down of the rst brigade in december. we then did lengthen it out over the course of the next spng, but in this case we will actually have all of our u.s. surge forces, all of our tactical units, certainly again less the one headquarters that's not requiredntil the month after august, but on the ground by the end of august. and again, the july 2011 date is the date at which he process, again, begins that would have a -- would embark on the quote responsible drawdown of the surge forces. so, that's a pretty considerable

period. now, with respect to theedensity of forces, we've got a situation in afghanistan where there are a number of places that really don't require substantial numbers of coalition forces. and areas where, i fact, the afghans again are very much in the lead. so, this is about counterinsurgency math. we think we'll have the density. once we get the additional forces on the ground, uwe're abn forces by about 100,000 between the period of earlier this year, and the fall of 2011. >> all right, thank you general. >> senatorimhoff's comment about the importance of the strip program i think reflects the views of every member of this committee and the reason why both the hask and the sask reduced the $1.8 billion to $800 million in afghanistan is because you're on track in afghanistan to spend only $200 million for this entire year of the billion that we appropriated

last year. so for the record would you also then explain to us why the request is for $1.1 billion and why the reduction to $800 million uld have a negative impact, given the spending rate is only $200 million for the entire year? but we do, i think i can say that what senator imhoef says is reflective of thiscommittee's very, very strong support for the circ program and your answer to that country would be helpful to us as we proceed during this budget. i want to thank you for hofe for your leadership on that program. senator, udall? >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for that clarification about circ. i think everybody on the committee does fully support it. good morning to both of you. general, we all on the committee understand this is an important time in afghanistan. and i think it would be useful to be able to consider president karzai a reliable partner. it's sometimes hard to

understand what he says versus what he does and vice verz sa. i had a couple of questions in that regard. how do you best explain what seemingly is his material personality, one day he talks about common causes with the taliban and then another day goes down to kandahar and pleads residents to cooperate in the upcoming ght. and then secondly, i had a chance to get to know minister atmar and had great respect for his talent and his vision. what do you think his departure might meannfor the important, maybe even crucial, police training effort? >> thanks senator. on the first question i think there are a number of explanations, if you will. first of all, perhaps political leaders occasionally differentiate their message a tiny bit, depending on who the audience might be.

i think that would never happen in our own country, but i think over there that occasionally happens. second thing is, this is a tough fight. and leaders are under enormous pressure. i can tell you that having dealt with leaders throughout our region, and having dealt with leaders in iraq at various times who were similarly under enormous, perhaps even greater pressure, is just staggering levels of violence in iraq over the years that we were there prior to the downturn. again, this can lead individuals at times to have outbursts or to express frustrations. and i think there's a bit of that that is understandable. now,ith respect to the president accepting the resignation of the minister of -- former minister of

interior, someone, indeed, that we all really knew quite well, have workedwith, not just as a minister of interior, but in two previous ministry positions, as well. and one who, again, has impressed all of us, i think the impact of the departure cannot be determined, needless to say, until we know who the replacement is. there are discussions going on, you should know, that coalition leaders are certainly included in those discussions. which i think is a positive feature of the process but at the end of the day, certainly this will be the decision of the president of a sovereign country. but if the candidates that we think are under consideration provide the ultimate next minister, then i think that the ministry will continue forward on a positive projectry. >> so you're guardedly

optimistic that there will be a replacement with whom we could work and who will bring the same sort of focus and expertise? >> that's correct, senator. i would not rule out again seeing minister ottmar back in another capacity, either. >> that's hearteng to hear. if i might let me move to the very fascinating report over the weekend that deputy undersecretary of defense paul brinkley issued on the mineral and natural resource wealth of afghanistan. it's tied to military task force, the task force for business and stability operations and you may know the chairman and i teamed up to offer an amendment in the defense authorization act that authorizes that task force to work in afghanistan. the amendment also, general, will ask for report from the dod and the state department to look at the promising sectors in afghanistan's economy, assess their capabilities of the government to generate additional revenue, to work on

infrastructure needs and so on. we're hopeful this report will provide important information that will enable afghanistan to attract investment and pursue new economic opportunities. i'd trbed to hear your thoughts on the task force work, and more generally about these economic development opportunities. and the undersretary may want to respond, as well. >> well, first of all, if i could just say that deputy undersecretary paul brinkley, in the task force stability operations did phenomenal work in iraq. it was really created initially, in fact, to our request at that time, that someone try to get some business leaders back in to iraq. it was a land of extraordinary opportunity, but also at that time, a land of extraordinary violence. but you had to look out over the horizon. you had to envoice a world where the violence was reduced, and business could begin to flourish again, given the extraordinary potential that iraq has in terms of its energy resources, natural water, agriculture, and a

variety of other blessings, including human capital. and he was able to bring in business leaders at a time when no business leader in his right mind would come in on his own. we flew them around, secured them, housed them, fled them and everything else. and over time, this led to some very big deals, actually. for american business, but ao in some cases for some other businesses, as well. because we did indeed open more widely than that. but some very, very big transactions that iraq needed. in fact, this is at a time when prime minister maliki specifically was asking me as a military commander if i could get a certain corporation to re-engage after their earlier disappointing exrience there. and get another one, in the electrical sector, the oil sector, gas and so forth. again deputy undersecretary brinkley did great work there. so, in fact, i encouraged, and we had help to get him in to afghanistan, we might even look

a bit more broadly than that, but, in fact, it was during his process of getting acquainted with the situation on the ground in afghanistan that these geological surveys and other documents were all pulled together, and i think people realize the magnitude of the mental resources that exist in afghanistan. recognizing the ermous challenges to actually turning those in to wealth and income and so forth for the people, revenue. but nonetheless, recognizing extraordinary potential that is there. it has some of the world's last remaining superdeposits or se other terms, certainly, for environment, lithium, tin, timber, gemstones. it has some coal, it has some natural gas and oil. so, again, they're not super deposits. but it has extraordinary potential. and again, helping business find its way to that in partnership with the military that is trying to create the security

foundation on which they can build and operate i think is a very important initiative and i appreciate the committee's support for that particular initiative. that's one of the areas in which we've learneduge lessons in the context of counterinsurgency operations in the last five years or so. >> let meust add that i think that what the picture that's pointed from the u.s. geological survey that was done, which is only a parpgs survey, that under mr. brinkley's sponsorship, really paints a brighter economic picture for afghanistan midterm d long-term. and it creates at least the prospect of a much more sustainable economy that can actually support some of the capabilities that we are putting in place today, liie the armed forces, another government and economic capacity. it also shines a spotlight on the importance of some of our capacity building efforts,

particularly with the ministry of mines. which is under new leadership that seems very capable and competent. and we are working very closely with them to try to build their capacity so that this information informs their planning and think sort of get off to the right -- on the right foot in terms of pursuing some of these opportunities, working with businesses, private sector companies from various -- from arou the world. so we think this is a bright spot on the horizon, as general petraeus said, it's going to take a lot of time and effort to build the capacity, and the sort of legal structures and so forth to really take full advantage of this. but we're working along those lines. >> thank you for that elaboration. >> thank you very much senator. thank you for your leadership on this very, very important part of the afghan picture, essential that leadershipe there, we're all grateful to you for it.

senator brown? >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, it's good tsee you. in such chipper shape today. and, a lot of cookies back there, which i hope you partaken a couple. when we met in afghanistan, actually, i was aware, we were briefed, in fact, of the mineral and oil and other deposits and it became apparent to me that for one, they have a problem how to get everything out of the earth, one. number two, how to security it and get it from point "a" to point "b." and number three how to ensure that the corruption that we've seen in afghanistan actually keeps the money in country and has it flow down to the individual citizens. so the challenges, madam secretary, and general, obviously seem great. yes, there is a bright spot, but it also appears to be, how do we get from point "a" to point "b"? do you see a role with the milita in anything aside from securing, or