for a look at the oil industry, retired major general on the confirmation hearing for general david petraeus, the new commander in afghanistan. "washington journal" is next. . . host: david petraeus and what is

expected to be an easy confirmation. many questions on the troop withdrawal the line. vice-president joe biden is heading to the gulf coast today. president obama is meeting with a group of senators to talk about the energy bill. it is tuesday, june 29. we will begin for the next 45 minutes or so on yesterday's ruling by the supreme court, a 5-4 decision dealing with the second amendment and local laws. our phone lines are open. "washington journal" calling it a five-gun salute, and the supreme court: it the bill of rights. you can join the conversation on line. here's a look at some headlines beginning with the philadelphia paper -- the high court limits

the gun ban. meanwhile, from this paper, the justices broadened gun rights. and from the editorial pages -- their right to bear arms, but -- the editors indicate that the decision from yesterday's both correct, and potentially troubling.

we will read more from the editorial pages, and more of your reaction on this case decided yesterday, a 5-4 release. the four dissenting members of the supreme court. we're joined from conroe, texas, on the independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my concern is the balance between the 10th amendment, states' rights, as well as the second amendment.

i am glad to see on one hand the support for the second amendment. on the other hand, i am concerned about the 10th amendment. the states' rights. it is a balancing act. i'm not real sure how those -- i know that california is getting very restrictive on their gun laws. i would expect in the near future may be the courts will end up reviewing some of the california laws. host: the conversation from our twitter page -- let me share some other editorials, this one from "the wall street journal" -- the five-gun salute.

larry is joining us from memphis, tennessee. caller: good morning. host: your take on this release? caller: the government is always going against the will of the people. the people do not want more guns. we have enough guns on the street.

people profited. corporations donated as much money as they can. they do not care about small people. host: here is a story from "the philadelphia inquirer" -- it is the first on the court has determined that the constitution restricts state and municipal gun powers. clair is joining us from new

york city on the independent line. caller: as far as people having guns, i like to suggest -- it is outrageous [unintelligible] i also think they should take the survey. [unintelligible] it is awful to have a gun anywhere. it is only allowed may be in the mideast or far east. it is awfully dangerous to have it even within families, children. this has happened several times that a child takes the father's rifle and shoots children and the school.

host: of you are listening on the radio, here are the numbers -- we are talking about yesterday's 5-4 decision by the u.s. supreme court and the final day for justice john paul stevens. we will show you the letter he wrote to a colleague, and moments from the final day inside the chamber. if you want to get more on the elena kagan nomination you can go to c-span.org/kagan. we are keeping track of all the developments in the hearing, and will explain some terms as they come up in the questioning. it is the second day of questioning. back to the ruling and more editorials. this from the washington times -- a new battleground for guns

rights. the conclusion is this -- the story is the same throughout the country an explanation is all too simple. ajay is joining us from memphis, tenn. on the republican line. caller: thank you. the only issue i have with this ruling is it should have been 9- 0 against the city of chicago. the bill of rights is very specific and that is a personal right. when i hear the liberals talking that this is the government impinging on the will of the states, that argument does not hold because the 10th amendment says those powers are not directly given to the government are given directly to the states

and people. the second amendment specifically gives this right to the people so that states cannot infringe upon a. it is obvious those four justices who wiruled for the ciy should almost immediately be impeached. host: this is the story above the fold -- a longtime observer of the supreme court, emotion on the court's final day. roose better ginsberg on the court after her husband's death on sunday. this headline that the ruling tells the law against limits on guns. ann has this comment on our twitter page. bill is joining us from minneapolis.

caller: i really support what the supreme court did yesterday. go back several years ago, in minnesota we have conceal and carry. when that was debated in the legislature i was totally against it for the fear that it would add more guns on the street. and people would be using the guns and many crimes. that has not panned out. i can only recall one case where someone had a concealed and carry license and i shall use it to commit a crime. he is now doing life over in still water in the state prison. i think all this hysteria about adding more guns on the street -- i think that is really unjustified. host: our topic is the supreme court, second amendment, the local laws. from the twitter page --

next is a joseph on the democrats' line from new york city. caller: your caller just now said there is no basis for the arguments for putting more guns on the street, but if he -- i am only 25, but my father told me stories about new york in the early 1970's. it was terrible here. adding more guns to the street during an economic downturn -- it will inevitably cause more crime. host: let me get to this front page -- it" mayor daley of chicago. this is from his news conference in chicago yesterday.

robert joins us from ohio on the republican line. caller: our constitution has not changed essentially since it was written. in america we have the right to keep and bear arms, meaning firearms, any kind expose, concealed the, what ever. also, according to our constitution what is legal in one state is legal in all the states. host: tampa is next, richard of the republican line -- rather independent line. caller: well, florida is probably the most liberal state in the union when it comes to conceal/tcarry. i will estimate amongst those i know 75% carry concealed weapons. host: 75%?

caller: yes, and we do not have crime problems, really. in the middle of town where there are some areas were the wrong people live -- and they have gangs and problems -- i live out on the edge of town, and we do not have crime. the reason, in my opinion, that we do not have break-ins are burglaries', all the common stuff going on -- is we do not have robberies, is because that the people who perpetrate those crimes know that if they come into the area of like where i live, people will fight back. and they know how to use their firearms. you cannot see them flashed around. you do not see any problems with arguments and guns being pulled out. it never happens. so, the people who think that because they live in a place where they have a great fear

because they do not understand guns, did not grow up with guns -- it's not a problem. host: inside "the wall street journal" there is a map -- you can see darker states with the most restrictive gun laws. the electors days like texas and oklahoma have the least restrictive gun laws. below that, some ways that states are trying to restrict or regulate firearms -- for example, those that want to limit any bulk purchases include california, maryland, new jersey, virginia. states that want to ban assault weapons include connecticut, hawaii, new york. states that want to permit local control on the loss included florida, illinois, new jersey, pennsylvania. more from the a section of this paper. richard on the twitter page --

next is steve, from atlanta. caller: if the democrats did not work so hard on being soft on criminals and letting the relief corps bad guys out, telling us we must rehabilitate them, telling us we must understand them -- they are the ones with the guns. to restrict the common folks from having them, to prevent and defend us from liberal judges who cast of the worst in society out -- there are those who tell me that they constantly serve the same morn's on the same people. due to the breakup of the family urged by the great society reform bills, now you have people in the country who do not, did not grow up in a good family, and then they will not let us defend ourselves against

the weekend policies. we need our guns. it is our constitutional right. host: justice samuel a leto writing that the gun right is fundamental to personal liberty. mike has this on our twitter page. with our low population states having a disproportionate representation, problems like this are difficult. next is charles from st. petersburg, fla., on the democrats' line. caller: a few seconds ago i heard a caller from tampa say there was no problem. there is a problem. two tempo police officers during so-called routine traffic stop were shocked. one was killed, the other is on life support. this is a problem that has been around for many years. what is needed is for federal, state, and local law enforcement

to take a leader -- we do not have many leaders in this country, but there are leaders and these various law- enforcement departments, to take a lead and get this business stopped. it must be stopped. host: we will come back to this question in just a moment. the supreme court ruling yesterday involving the second element and jurisdiction of local and state laws versus what is in the constitution. it was also the last day for justice john paul stevens. he has been the longest serving justice on the supreme court. this letter has been reprinted that he delivered to his colleagues. he went on to say it has been an honor and privilege to share custodial responsibility for a great institution with a view,

and 10 of your predecessors. at the age of 90 john paul stevens is retiring. yesterday was the final day of decisions by the supreme court. we're talking about the 5-4 ruling decision that came down yesterday. from the supreme court -- elena kagan's approach is modest. today is the day of questioning of elena kagan before the confirmation. what do you expect in terms of the questioning by members of the judiciary committee? guest: it foreshadows their line of attack. not only for the past several weeks but in the opening

statements yesterday, a the my think we should look for is the republicans arguing that her lack of judicial experience would get in her way -- one of the things we should look for. that her resume as a law clerk for a more liberal lion, thurgood marshall, an official in the clinton white house, and the of the harvard law school -- all those things make her ill suited for life on the law bench. they have revealed her in the local eyes as being a good political hack. the democrats will say that she is the first potential justice a judge is a wonderful thing. but the court could use more non-judges. these types of people can do some of the best negotiating and to understand the real world

kinds of cases the government is party to. host: the headlines from many papers here and from cq.com -- the word modest used by elena kagan in her opening statement is getting a lot of attention. what is the significance of that word? guest: it is the what attitude she used in which she tried to encapsulate the she is not the opposite word which has been the word used to describe so many supreme court justices -- activist. modest is someone who would show restraint, not be out to make new law at every opportunity, but who would take a judicious approach to writing opinions. for many years the republicans have succeeded at framing the debate over supreme court

appointees. really gone back to the judge bork era. it has been a fight between republicans and democrats. host: from the "the new york post" this morning. the online and kagan really is "vapid-fire." guest: today i think the questioning will be intense, and i think that the headline writer got it ccrrect. i bet you 24 hours from today we will see more coverage on the front pages of the papers of the david petraeus hearing them of the elena kagan hearing. the republicans have had a month or more to come up with their best arguments and evidence

against elena kagan. it has failed to catch fire, and fail to catch fire with the public who seem more interested in the david petraeus/general stem a crystal spat, and the gulf oil spill. host: it is shaping up to be quite a we care. just two months from yesterday's opening statements. from this rhode island center and the oklahoma senator, both members of the judiciary committee. >> my hope is with your stiller academics and still intellect that your patriotism will be just as stiller. that in fact, you will set a new course to set a new president for the committee -- precedent for the committee, so that the american people can find out what the justice is all about.

this is my fourth hearing. it is obvious from what we have heard in the previous hearings, that they're not predictive of the decisions of nominees. that is schizophrenic. why should we have this dance of we're not going to find out really answers about real issues about what you really believe? >> so lead the supreme court seems to be buying what corporations are selling. the exxon v. baker decision rejected a jury's award of $5 billion in punitive damages, only one year's profits for exxon. and reduced the award by 90%. anything more than the compensatory damage award the court reasoned, would make punitive damages too unpredictable for corporations. the judgment of the jury and the wisdom of founding fathers were for the court lesser values and then providing corporations

predictability. what of the unpredictability for alaska? of exxon's of drunken capt. running his shipper run? and one cannot help but wonder now what additional precautions bp might have taken in the gulf if that corporation did not know that the supreme court had its back on predictability? i mention these concerns to you, solicitor general elena kagan, because you made decisions that affect every aspect of americans lives. if confirmed, i hope and trust you will adhere to the best institutional traditions of the supreme court, and act with a clear understanding of the proper role of all the institutions of government, provided for us by our founding fathers. host: that was from the first day of confirmation hearings, yesterday. we're joined by our guest from cq.com. let me ask you about the

comments of senator lindsey graham, alluding to the decision from 2005 that the senate would not put it in a filibuster except in cases of extreme situations with regard to supreme court nominees. does the elena kagan nomination reach that level? guest: it probably does not. senator lindsey graham was referring to a deal five years ago in which there was a huge partisan standoff in the senate where democrats were refusing to bring a collection of george w. bush's more conservative nominees to a vote. the republicans were threatening with a call the nuclear option, essentially a very aggressive parliamentary move to end the filibusters of judicial nominees. now the situation has the issue of your foot.

it is the republicans now who would have the power to filibuster. the deal was it would be only an extraordinary circumstances that judges were out of the mainstream that a filibuster would be allowed. you did not even here is senator tom coburn, one of the more conservative, saying that yesterday. the odds of a filibuster nominee are small. host: as tributes continue for the passing of senator robert byrd who died yesterday morning and a hospital, the political equation is what impact it has on the financial regulatory overhaul bill. they moved through the conference process last week. will it come before the house and senate process this week? guest: it appears to be on course for the house towards the end of the week. when i left last night we thought the odds seemed a little long that it would come up in the senate.

the combination of the uncertainty about the funeral arrangements for senator robert byrd, and the uncertainty about whether this bill could pass without his votes have put that into doubt. senator robert byrd's death reduces the effective number of democrats down to 50. to overcome any filibuster mounted by republicans you have to come up with two republicans -- his death reduced the effective number of democrats down to 58. senator scott brown voted for the bill the first time, but now says he is angry at the with the final version of the bill would impose a $19 billion amount of fees to pay for the new regulation. it is a pay as you go provision most republicans like, the center scott brown says he doesn't like this one.

host: so, it would require 60 votes to end debate, even if there are only 99 members of the senate? guest: that is correct. the rule is 3/5 of those centers elected and duly sworn -- of the senators elected and duly sworn, meaning in office. it would take a reduction of the senate down to 98 to reduce the number from 60 down to 59 for a filibustering. there's no question by any accounts that david petraeus will be confirmed by the committee and full senate, but many questions on what he will face in terms of policy in afghanistan. will you elaborate? guest: yes, this will become an opportunity for skeptics of our policy in afghanistan to voice their skepticism. general david petraeus was the commanding general in iraq

during much of the so-called surge. -- so-called surge period. there is thought that translating his strategy will be quite difficult because the geography in many things are different. this will be the opportunity for the skeptics would system both pprties to voice that. but there is no doubt they have faith in david petraeus that he will be a fine commanding general. host: and there is the july 4 weekend and it will still be out next week? guest: it is as predictable as you can have in congress. the days before christmas are more up in the air than before july 4. everyone's to be home in their state for fireworks. host: thank you david. this morning the tribute to the

passing of senator robert byrd. a public servant for the ages. also, from inside "the washington post" -- and appointed senator to replace robert byrd. and also, from "the new york times quoted some past members of the new york said paying tribute. robert byrd painting history. several senators including

walter mondale. we will return to the issue of second amendment rights versus local laws. marcy has been waiting on the independent line. caller: good morning. can you hear me? ok. are we talking about a second amendment right, or an inalienable right? they seemed to slowly erode our constitution and where the triws citizens have a right to bear rights to protect our home and ourselves. this was once the motor capital

of the states. it takes us the citizens as to when and where we can buy an arm or gun to protect ourselves. it does not make sense. host: local restrictions across the nation are in jeopardy -- the headline from "usa today." here is another, the high court blows a hole and gun bans. caller: hello, the republicans are the biggest hypocrites that ever lived. they talk about state rights in the 10th amendment, and the 10th amendment this and that. then they left a judge become essentially a federalist judge and make a ruling that goes absolutely against the tandem of. i believe in the second amendment rights. just as much as i do believe in the 10th amendment rights. the reality is, you might as

well get ready for immigration, you bunch of losers republicans. the reality is the 14th a memo will take president over everything, you bunch of losers. host: another story getting a lot of attention -- moscow on the hudson has the fbi now being 10 and a high-level russian spy ring. details -- the cold war is alive and well, and apparently being waged right here in new york. yesterday the fbi announced it had smoked out a nest of 10 russian spies who spent decades under a long time the cover, living as ordinary suburbanites with lawns and minivans was gathering information.

and one other headline from above the new york post" -- the russian spy ring is a big apple bust. you can read more in "the new york times" as well. joining us on the republican line, good morning. what is your take?

caller: i'm from brooklyn and read "the new york times." i want to know where you stand. host: jacob is joining us from alaska, up arly. caller: howdy. i like to comment on the earlier comment about republicans being hypocritical. state rights in the sense of the classical, libertarian view has to do with limited government intervention. but this ruling has more to do with the 14th amendment and incorporating the second amendment to apply to the stage just as the first and fourth, etc., have already been. one of my concerns is if you read the heller decision there

is a huge hole in it. they say any right does not unlimited and they can make restrictions on dangers or unusual weapons. they did not really define which type of weapons were protected, just that you cannot absolutely ban everything. my concern is, if areas like chicago want to have a restrictive gun control laws, are not able to enforce them on their own cities, as people will be forced to enact federal legislation that will affect everyone. host: let's return to the editorial, in conclusion -- elena kagan may soon replace john paul stevens on the court.

david is joining us from flint, mich., on the democrats won. caller: good morning. yes, i agree with that caller who called republicans hypocrites. they pick and choose what things they like, and what things they do not like we had the most activist supreme court ever -- they have done so much to support the republicans since

they got clarence thomas on the court. i am a liberal democrat, i will admit, but i cannot understand america wanting to be a nation with guns. what do people want to kill something? i worked with some guys who were very nice at gm who hunted and would bring food in during the winter -- i understand that. that was nice, but why do americans have do have automatic weapons and guns to kill or hurt somebody? i cannot believe these people in the united states are crazy -- they love to kill. thank you. host: next is tom come on the republican line, from mobile, alabama. caller: your callers are misinformed or ignorant of the history of the second amendment. many of the anti-gun laws or

gun-control laws were put into place to keep guns out of the hands of blacks in the south after the time, during the time of reconstruction and during the time of the jim crow law. that said, and people are missing an important point of elena kagan's thoughts on the second amendment. she loved the national rifle association and the ku klux klan together. either she is ignorant of history, or does not care. to include the oldest and largest civil-rights organization in the nation, the nra with a racist, a terrorist organization is ridiculous. the second amendment is as important a ride as the first amendment.

host: patrick leahy of vermont questioned elena kagan yesterday. this is inside the hart office bottoming out the session is expected to last until about 6:30 p.m. today. each center will have 30 minutes for the first round. there are 19 members of the committee. there is a second chance for more questions. the plan is to conclude hearings on thursday. as we heard yesterday from senator patrick leahy, the passing of senator robert byrd may affect the schedule, or could go also into friday, depending how many questions they have. back to the editorial, the right to bear arms, but not a license to overturn all gun control laws.

you can read more on their website. a caller from ohio, good morning, on the independent line. are you there? we will go next to chicago. this is impacting your city with your mayor angry at the supreme court decision. caller: good morning. i have been here all my life. in 51 years old.

-- i am 51 years old. to me, the ban was stupid. criminals will always find ways to get handguns. all he did was take handguns away from hard-working taxpayers. that is all they did was to take it away from the. i remember i went to florida with my kids to disney world. we flew down and rented a car from the airport. at the same time, if you recall, they were having a bump thing if they knew you had out of state tax -- and if you would get out, they would rob you. that is because florida has the conceal/carry law, so there would not take a chance on robbing someone with a fourth attack, because they don't know if that person would have a gun

or not. i'm glad for the ruling, but do believe the mayor of chicago, which i did not vote for, is going to make it so hard and financially difficult that many people are going to give up on the idea of even trying to purchase a handgun. host: offshore drilling, the cleanup on the gulf coast, and what is next for the u.s. oil industry -- rayola dougher will join us, she is with the american oil institute. later we will have a preview of the confirmation hearings for david petraeus. a couple more phone calls. from this twitter page -- from the front page of the paper in nevada -- there is a game

called upon" we're is sharron angle?" -- "where is sharron angle?" this is what it looks like from the jump page of the article -- in nevada, running for the senate, and running from the cameras. good morning.

caller: i just want to applaud the constitution allowing me to protect myself. i lived down here and the sarasota area. i don't know if you heard, but there has been a lot of people taking in the front doors and robbing people. i bought a gun about five years ago and i sleep better knowing i have it at the ready. i am 70, retired, and having the gun by my side -- and if they kick in the front door, at least have some kind of leverage. host: according to "the wall streettjournal" there are some ideas for laws are restriction. there are a number of states including yours that would ban the sale of gainguns in book fo.

do you support that? caller: yes, something like that. i'm an individual and purchased mine for my personal home protection. i have only used it as a firing range to practice. i do not take it out with me and carry it around, but from what i understand, the power is an extension of my home and i could have it loaded in my car under my seat or in my glove box. and protect myself in that manner. but -- host: what was the process for you to buy a gun in sarasota? was there a period, background check? caller: there was an application including the background check and showing the identification. then they have three or four days with a check it out, check to see if you have any kind of felony. if you do not, then they will call you until you have been

approved. it takes two or three days. host: did you find it cumbersome, or did you feel the process is fair? caller: i feel it was fair. host: one other comment from the twitter page. you can continue to join the conversation online at twitter.com/wj and this is the second day of billing and taken confirmation, with average continuing in the gulf of mexico. we will talk more about the future of the u.s. oil industry in a moment.

♪ >> c-span is not available in over 100 million homes. it is all as a public service, created by america's cable companies. >> west virginia senator robert byrd served more than 50 years in the u.s. senate, longer than anyone in history. watch our 1988 profile with the center, among other things, all online at the video library. >> sunday, your questions for the syndicated talk show radio host, a life.

the former education secretary and first drug czar is the author of more than 20 books for both adults and children. three hours, part of the three- day holiday weekend on c-span2. "washington journal quality continues. host: we want to welcome rayola dougher. she is the senior advisor at the petroleum institute. we want to talk about the future of the industry, but also what is happening on the gulf coast. going back to april 20, when the rig explosion, what caused it? guest: we're still trying to figure that out and the president has a commission looking into this for the next several months. everyone is focused on exactly what happened. was it a technology failure?

of human failure? a combination? we will have to wait until we get the report of commission, and in order to address this moving forward. until this time the industry has had a great safety record in the gulf of mexico. we have thousands of rigs out there. for 60 years we have been in the gulf, 30 years and the deep water. never an event like this. everyone is focused on what happened and what we can do, and how we can change operations to make sure this never happens again. host: the legal and environmental issue, the ruling by the president and interior the permit to hold for at least 33 rigs in the gulf and elsewhere in the future development. the court overturning the ruling -- what is the opinion of your institute? guest: we welcome the decision,

especially for the folks who work on the rigs, tens of thousands who would be affected directly, especially in louisiana. as soon as the spill happened all those developmental platforms were shut down. they were respected and passed inspection. they passed inspection. in addition, the industry formidable task forces immediately to look at safety operations offshore. also looking at blowout preventers. they joined experts together from around the world to look for any gaps, anything we could do better. they send that information to the department of interior the then reported back to the president. the industry is not walking away from it. phese have been inspected.

if there is additional safety, ideas, and implementation, and they can do it without shutting it down for the next six months. it is a serious thing to do to the economy of louisiana. the state already suffers tremendously from the spill. it does not sound like a lot to shut this down with 33 developmental platforms -- 250 people on age -- that put you up to the thousands, multiplied by the several jobs those support. it has a true impact on the development of the area. host: but the more mature groups will say we don't know exactly what caused the explosion on april 20, one noterr on the side of environmental and human safety by holding off? getting answers, then resuming construction? guest: that is a very good

point. but you cannot assume because you had one accident that all the rigs are not safe, especially when you have a 30- year record, thousands out there globally. as many as 14,000 globally of the deep water operations. it would be as iif you're sittig down the entire airline industry over one crashed no i don't think anyone is more focused on exactly what happened. there is every incentive to examine the technology, look at best practices. we already know from a few things that there was a sequence of events. it was not just one thing. host: if we continue to see from the live camera on the gulf of mexico floor, the oil spewing --

why has it been so difficult to stop the flow? guest: they initially thought there would have more success. the original reason was the blowout preventer not working. i think it has a lot to do with the debt. also, the great pressure. the combination is making it difficult to contain. ultimately, the final solution is the extra wells there digging to take off the pressure. they're doing two and case the first does not work. host: our conversation with rayola dougher, the senior advisor at the american petroleum institute. our phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen. today at the white house the president meets with members of

the senate, including lindsey graham, and several others to talk about energy legislation in light of the gulf coast situation -- will a bill passed in the congress this year? guest: i honestly do not know. fold seven focused on energy policy for the future in this magnifies the interest. ultimately, white or if there will come up with something -- it is too hard to say now. host: our cameras to be at the white house, a stakeout outside the west wing. the meeting was rescheduled because of developments over the resignation of general stamina crystal -- stanley mcchrystal.

caller: in michigan 10 years ago there was a spurt of oil fields being dug in farm fields and back yards. oil was discovered. i understand that the wells were capped and the capacities were added to our strategic oil reserves. i'm not clear about this. i want to give you the opportunity to explain how the strategic oil reserve works and how it fits, or could be leveraged to help with the crisis. guest: we do have a strategic petroleum reserve it set up decades ago, right after the 1974 oil embargo. it was put together in case we had a dramatic disruption of supply. the u.s. would still have a back up. we have about 800 million

barrels in the reserve. we can call on that. we have used it in the past when there has been hurricanes in the gulf of mexico this rafting tanker traffic. the refineries can draw on that. it is available. we do not need it for this particular spill. there is plenty of oil in the world. we will not need to draw on that right now. host: here is a comment by twitter. i think we ask you about that -- the new ones. guest: yes, it is 33 new platforms. the reason it makes a difference in terms of employment -- it does not sound like much. it is because it would affect about 9000 jobs directly. maybe another 30,000 jobs

indirectly in the gulf of mexico. it would affect the estimates range anywhere from between 80,000 barrels per day to as much as 200,000 barrels less by next year. fuel. it is a significant impact on the economy. it could be as much as $500 million in revenue to the federal government. it is a big deal. host: tom is joining us from new jersey on the republican line. caller: i have a couple of quick comments. first of all, with regard to the oil companies and the industry, i say to those people up in arms, do not kill the golden goose. there is an old child our rhymed story about the golden goose line eggs and then killing them

to get it -- and then killing it to get them all at once. we have to stop banning things we cannot come and try to learn how to control things. that applies to oil, guns, drugs, and a lot of other things. we can get more out of the oil industry and serve the people this country better if we work with them and don't see them as enemies. we have to decide, don't we? we just so we wanted to free ourselves of middle east oil dependency and become independent for the safety of our country? we will have to suffer some consequences if we do. . .

guest: we're going to learn a lot from this and be better than ever before. we do have to get through this and recognize the nation needs a lot of natural gas moving toward. it provides 60% of the energie's energy needs. we will need a significant amount. we have an opportunity to develop our own resources, even as we move to new technologies and tools in the future. we have an obligation to move together. you do not want to cut this off

right now. this would enhance our dependence on foreign sources. host: we have put together what we zinc is a pretty valuable resource for you online at c- span.org/oilspill. this is cleincludes all aspectsf what is going on with the oil spill. it will include the briefings, speeches, and links to other web pages. the conversation on mind, tina from the twitter page. bp is paying for rig jobs for six months. not the same as shutting down airlines. guest: i think the most recent agreement with the administration was for $20

billion in damages. $100 million for the oil workers. well, just from those rigs alone you can go through $300 million in a month of wages. they have probably already spent that money in terms of the oil wages out there. that really is not going to cover it. host: new york on the independent line. go ahead, david. caller: i was wondering if the guest which comment about the technology's use to clean up this spill. it seems like what they're using is what they used 30 or 40 years ago. i will hang of that let you comment. guest: i think you are right. it is old technology. we're see that play out.

twe have four task forces. two are looking at will control. and also spill response. -- two are looking at well control. bp is getting a lot of ideas from the general public. we are addressing that now and moving forward with drawing together industry experts, and some of the really good ideas to see if we could enhance that moving forward and what that will look like. it is going to get better. we have not faced up a spill like this ever. we're learning a lot. we're going to have to apply some of those lessons learned. we will be doing that. host: a robust dialogue on the twitter page. with those numbers, 3600, it

must employ half of the u.s. guest: you can do the math. there are two different shifts. 250 on a platform * 33. that the two to 8000 something. you get up there pretty darn fast. and you really do. host: how about putting the displaced oil workers putting to work to clean up oil on the beach? let's hear from ron. caller: i think your numbers are all a little bit as far as we produce of 20% of the oil out of the gulf. most of the oil goes into the pre-market.

it does not necessarily go to the u.s.. the other thing is -- host: let's take the first question. guest: i think you misunderstood me. 30% of the u.s. production of crude oil comes from the gulf of mexico. 20% of that is in the deep water, which is the focus today. on the world stage we are the third largest producer in the world. it is a global market. the thing that is of value to the united states is we are producing it here. it is something we are not importing and we are employing workers in the united states. it is a great value to us to have this resource and continue to develop it. caller: well, i really do not think that. the other thing is that you talk about cleanup.

you guys have done terrible -- bp has done a terrible job. those people should be using respirators out there. they should have an idea of what they're doing instead of testing things. guest: i think it bp as well as the entire industry is learning important lessons. there are 36,000 people out there. this is the biggest cleanup operation in the history of the world, and we can see the visuals at night. we know even then it is not enough. i am not sure they could throw anything more at it than they are throwing at a right now. host: how many jobs are lost from oil spill?

guest: that will depend on how long the moratorium is. the lager permiting time. it can start accumulating fast. we will not know that for months to come. right now anywhere from 80 to 100,000 barrels per day. i have seen up to 200,000 barrels of the market. that is significant. that starts to add up. it will accumulate the longer you are out. i think the hardest thing for the industry is the hardesuncery moving forward. what is the next the? how we move on? that is still up in the air. -- what is the next step? how do we have at the process and make sure we can do it? are there rules and regulations we can do right now without shutting down the platform? is there an idea to make it

safer? that is what we're looking to get guidance on. host: we're talking to the senior american economic adviser at american petroleum. gas prices have been somewhat stable. guest: that is right. they are following what is going on in the crude market, around 75 and $85 per barrel. we have plenty of supply and out there. we are producing a lot of gasoline. -- we have plenty of supply out there. we have plenty of supplies. this accident so far has not affected the price of oil around the world. host: the white house announcing a plan that would allow drilling in areas, including off the coast of virginia. where does that stand out?

guest: i think the governor of virginia still wants to move ahead. legislators are moving ahead with that development. they want to learn all the lessons learned moving the board but they would like to see a miracle worker. we will have to wait. it was supposed to be available next year, and i am not sure where that is right now. certainly a lot being delayed, taken off the table from what was proposed earlier arent. host: after i learned that the gulf states are republican conservatives read, i lost all urgency in the league. drilled a drill. -- i lost all urgency in the leak. host: caller: everyone is so

quick to blame the industry. there have been so many devastating earthquakes. there could be ships under the earth and natural causes that could have for something to happen. i wanted to get your thoughts and throw that out there. thank you. and guest: they are looking at everything. and they are looking at the well-designed. all of the equipment. all of the procedures. this is going to be as examined as the 9/11 even. and we're going to know more about this event then we know about practically anything moving forward. i am sure they will look at realogy, but i have not heard that as a reason. -- i am sure they will look at geology, but i have not heard that as a reason.

host: she earned her master's year in washington, d.c. from john, he is asking what price would americans be willing to pay for gas it ocean drilling could be outlawed? $5, $10 per gallon? guest: i think i'm dollars per gallon is a lot of money to folks. -- i think $5 per gallon is a lot of money to folks. i have seen one recently that set up to $5 per gallon. i do not think you can really make up forecasts because you have to know what the supply and demand would be in the entire world. if you take that off the market, you are taking offer real potential for growth. this year the united states was forecast to be the major contributor to the increase in crude oil in the marketplace. we were going to be number one at that. i think now with this accident,

the moratorium, they are probably backing away from those at the geafigure s. next year it could be as much as 200,000 barrels. host: we are talking about a six month moratorium on new drilling. this is not the end of the world. guest: well, i think it is for anyone that loses their job, and i think it is for the people in the gulf, and i think it is for the thousands of people in louisiana that depend on it. it does matter. it matters greatly to them that they have those jobs. it matters to the state that has been in come, and it matters to the nation that we have the fuel supply. i think it is.

this is an industry that has had a stellar record in the gulf. we have an extraordinary event. we have gone back over the risk. -- the rigs. i stand ready to implement anything new, but let's keep operations running as we move forward. host: debbie from albuquerque, new mexico, on the independent line. caller: i am listening to this woman, and i am just floored, especially by the way she looks. she has the sweet, innocent look of a grandmother. i am amazed. it is all about the pr. i realize american gets upset by the fact that we do not own it, we have to buy it from other people. we want to own it.

we do not want anyone else controlling it but us. at what point do we say we are contaminating the water to the point it is unlivable? guest: i can tell you from 1947 up until this bill this bill rate was 1 when thousands of what was produced. they had a stellar record going into this. it is an extraordinary event. we will fix whatever went wrong and assure that it never happened again. and thank you for the comments about the grandmotherly looks. that is all i have to say. host: the white house list of the 23 senators in attendance to talk about the legislation. john kerry will be there.

and lindsay gramm was going to be there. his office confirming that he will not be in attendance because of the hearings on general petraeus. saying he cannot be in three places at the same time. now it is up to senator kerrey and lieberman to move forward on this. senator gramm saying he will not be part of the legislation. >guest: right. and your question? host: no question. just wanted to clarify. you can check it out on c- span.org. james joining us from north carolina. caller: good morning. you know, this thing about oil, it is not our only source of energy. it is time to look for new energy.

i understand she talks about all these regulations. it is all the other oil companies. all this regulation stuff, that has been talked about before. i think the moratorium should stay there. i lost my job, but a lot of jobs have been lost and not coming back. there are other things people can take up. if all other -- it the other oil companies can prevent this, why do they not have the technology to stop it? it does not sound too good. most of the oil that american stroke, we do not even use that. -- most of the oil that americans drill, we do not even

use that. guest: this came to a shock as a lot of people in the industry. i think you are right in terms of moving forward with thee vision of our energy future. we have to look at energy conservation very seriously in this nation. we have to invest in new technology and continue to diversify our sources of supply and the kinds of energy we use. i think we are all doing this, but we have a lot of room for improvement. oil companies are looking at a lot of new technology and investing a lot in the new technology, not just in oil and natural gas. we had 2000 million vehicles that depend on fuel. to get our topic, the cleanup in the gulf coast and what wahis nt

for the oil industry. -- host: our topic, the cleanup in the gulf coast and what is next for the oil industry. caller: i want to talk about ixtoc. it ran for 10 months. are you familiar with that? guest: just vaguely familiar. it did go on for 10 months, and so far is a bigger still then this bill -- is a bigger spill than this spill. caller: it did not have the above plans, but it did the same damage. it went away because of a tropical storm.

you'd hear nothing about this. i heard about it on larry king. i have heard that other china and other countries are drilling in the gulf. if the jobs move, they will never come back. if other foreign countries can drill out there, why are we penalizing ourselves? people did not understand. they do name calling. but they do not realize or they do not research or try to find out what all is going on. guest: there are leases off the coast of cuba. we do have a joint operations in the gulf of mexico with other foreign nationals. bp for example is a british company. part of the reason we're in the deep water is we have not been allowed to go and shallower -- in shallower areas around the

united states. we do need the resources moving people were. we really do. we have more in california, but i am not sure how many. in the gulf of mexico over 5000 altogether. operations on federal and private. host: what percent of the oil to be produced domestically? guest: we produce 40% of the nation's oil. we import 60%. the estimates show we could displace as much as 17% of our imports and domestically if you include the possibilities with partnering with canada, they give 21% of our imports. i think a lot of people do not

realize that. we have a lot of opportunities moving forward with them to up that amount. we do not have to be nearly as dependent as we sometimes feel. we do have opportunities to partner in this hemisphere as well. host: who are the leading opec nations? guest: saudi arabia is a big one. and the entire persian gulf is just 12% of the imports. host: independent line is next. caller: the analogy of a crash shutting down all the airlines is kind of a ludicrous analogy to the oil spill, but if you recall back on 9/11 when a plane crash that shut down every airplane within two hours and

not allow flights within five days. this is more like a plane crashing that is carrying a nuclear bomb. the propaganda that is going around above the oil coming out of the pipe -- about the oil coming up out of the pipe is nowhere near the actual amount. guest: i thought of that airplane analogy because that is what the judge used last week that ruled against the moratorium. he said even during 9/11 we only shut down airlines for three days. maybe that is not such a good analogy, but you have a point. but you are not going to shut down an entire operation and assume that all 33 rigs are in

danger of having the same accident when they have been operating safely for 30 years. this is an extraordinary even, and we are addressing it, but i do have to disagree in terms of shutting down operations. it is really over the top. host: on the twitter page, zack says if there has never been an ocean gusher prior to this, it only takes one blowout to change the acidity to unlivable. aguest: i am not sure how to comment on that. host: he feels that because of what we're feeling down there we are now making areas in the gulf coast unlivable. i am assuming he is supporting the moratorium. guest: we will have to wait to see how this plays out. this could be affecting

deepwater. there are some areas there are very concerned about because of the deepwater nature of this bill and what it could do to the wildlife, but we really do not know yet. it is a large area, and we're going to have to wait on that to assume that the entire gulf of mexico i think is a reach. >> the next call is from korea in maryland. -- host: the next call is from gloria in maryland. caller: i am growing weary of people trading people like this happened and we could not prevent its. we never had any business tampering with the environment to this extent until we knew what we were doing. that was my opinion when i was listening to all of the

lamebrain real baby drill people who had no idea of what they were talking about they just found a mantra that they b thought would help when an argument. in 1994 when we found we were hostage to dirty energy we should have gone busy looking at alternative energy sources. we did not do it then, at and as far as the plane crash analogy, the precious people who lost their lives and that plane crash were contained in a given area. we have a disaster that is going to change and negatively impact the quality of life of a bunch of hard-working people do not deserve this. guest: listen, there is no one

who cares more about the safety and the viability of operations and the men and women -- than the men and women that work in the industry. the reason we did not go through a wind and solar is because it was so expensive. this accounts for less than 1% of the energy needs. this is not some conspiracy. this is a real industry with real people that really care about their operations. host: can you speculate on the future of bp and $20 million fund? while this have any impact on operations? guest: certainly it does. they will spend earned income. they are very viable right now.

the price of oil is a good price. they have operations around the world. they should be able to make their commitments. and long term it is difficult to know. it depends on the value of the stock. they are solid right now. they should be able to meet their commitments. host: the bp c.e.o. was sent back to britain, no longer the face of bp. guest: i'm sure he wishes he could take back a few of the things he said. i cannot be the judge of that. host: part of the issue is he just did not say anything. either for legal reasons or lack of knowledge. guest: probably. i cannot really speak for him and his testimony.

host: last call, republican line from new orleans. caller: i will tell you what, the united states is really having problems with this spill. the main thing is stop the flow of oil and it would take care of the rest. the united states has been using every buddy, using their oil -- has been using every buddy, using their oil. please lay off of obama. he did not cause the spirit and it is tiis. host: did you want to respond? guest: i think a lot of people are looking for energy

independence. there are proposals on capitol hill to address that issue. i think i am repeating myself that we really will need a lot more oil and natural gas and our future. we have resources here and have to be able to develop them responsibly. we will learn a lot of the important lessons from this. we will come back better than ever. caller: when you think we could see additional rigs operational, maybe off the coast of california? guest: we already have rigs off the coast of california. and i think the sentiment has shifted in the united states. still the majority support development of offshore resources, but i think that the american people will have to really feel secure that it can be developed, that this accident cannot happen again, and that will take time to discover the reasons and rarely address them

and to earn back the trust. host: rayola dougher, thank you for your time. please come back again. the confirmation hearings for general david petraeus will get underway in just about an hour. live coverage on our website at c-span.org. the questioning not focusing as much on whether to confirm him, but rather the timeline. that is the focus of the next segment. we will take a look at other stories making news on this tuesday morning. with that, of jackson and his band radio. >> good morning. elena kagan will be questioned today by senators to say which lost might get discarded. it is the first day for questioning for president obama's nominee to succeed john

paul stevens to the high court. live coverage beginning at 9:30 on c-span3. russia's foreign ministry says the arrests of 10 alleged russian spies as a colis a throo the cold war. they allegedly tried to enter trade u.s. policy-making circles. general stanley mcchrystal removed last week is the top u.s. military commander in afghanistan has told the army he will retire, according to an army spokesperson yesterday. no date set for the retirement of general stanley mcchrystal. meanwhile, the head of britain's inquiry into the iraq war said the panel has held a private meeting with general petraeus.

john chillcote, appointed by the government to examine the case made for the war and errors in planning for a pose conflict reconstruction. he says his panel held a meeting with general petraeus in london earlier this month. more on afghanistannand general petraeus and mcchrystal coming up on washington journal. those are some of the latest >> the confirmation hearings of supreme court nominee elena kagan goes into the second day. senate judiciary committee members will begin questioning the nominee this morning in office on capitol hill. live coverage begins at 9:00 eastern on c-span3, seized and radio, and at c-span.org. -- cspan radio and at c-

span.org. the senate armed services committee hears testimony from the current commander of the united states central command, general david petraeus. he is president obama's nominee to take over as commander of afghanistan. you can see that live starting website, c-span.org. host: we are joined by timothy hagg, retired in 2006. let me share with you a report. the request to neutralize the afghan forces and showing glimpses of success. the point he makes is this. about 130 important insurgent figures have been captured or killed in afghanistan over the past 120 days.

at the same time the commanders turned their attention from the bike around marja to a much more complex campaign around kandahar. guest: specifically with regard to kandahar we are identifying who the leadership and infrastructure is. we are ratinding their it helpsn the night and apprehending them impossible. -- we are raiding their hideouts in the night and apprehending them if possible. general petraeus will have easy confirmation later this week.

a lot of questions on the timeline. can you elaborate? guest: that has been a controversy around the world i think. unfortunately, i think that was a mistake to announce a time for withdrawal. the reason i say that is because in afghanistan that was heard as the americans are leaving next year. the new wantuance to qualificats after the announcement or lost in the the shuffle. that gives support to the taliban, because they know it gets easier starting next july. more important almost, because of the counterinsurgency doctrine that is being pursued now, if you are a family man or a business owner you are thinking to him or with whom do i want to cast my lot? americans have said they are born to leave

here. do i make an accommodation with the bad guys? that makes it very hard to win their hearts and minds when they think you will not be around for the long haul. host: the president sitting down with general petraeus. this is what the president said over the weekend as he wrapped up the g-20 summit. specifically asked about the drive to -- delight 2011 timeline. -- july 2011 timeline. >> i do not have a crystal ball. i think right now the debate surrounding aafghanistan is either presented as he either we get up and leave immediately because there is no chance of a positive outcome, or we stay basically indefinitely and do

whatever it takes for as long as it takes. host: is the president backpedaling on the deadline? guest: i think he is. it goes to the initial point you cannot have step in this. you cannot be ambiguous and try to please all sides. you have to be clear and decisive. i think fell with the implications it is clear that was a mistake initially to declare a pullout date or even a drawdown date. now he is trying to clarify that. afghanistan is worth fighting for. host: let me take the other side of the equation. if you have an open-ended commitment, at what point do you say enough is enough?

guest: it is a hard question to answer. i think it is going to -- when we knowill we know we have won? when things are quiet. when attacks are down. when there is a functioning economy and people are supporting the central government. those are all benchmarks. we are pursuing each of those individually, but no one can give you a date when that will happen. when the other side gets exhausted and realizes that we have the will to stay there and commit whatever resources are required, that is when they will start to change their thinking and the violence will abate. host: general haake, can you go through the highlights of your career?

guest: i volunteered in 1970 in the middle of law school. i went in and did my initial service. i volunteered for the army's special service. i came out and finished law school. i stayed in the reserves basically the entire time, all in the special operations unit. i was fortunate and got a direct commission in 1978 and went from being a staff sergeant to a captain, which was good. i like improved at that point immeasurably. i was a jag officer for 20 some years. i was picked by general shelton who was the chairman of the joint chiefs and the special operations commander to be his legislative liaison here in washington for the command. during that time is when 9/11 occurred. host: can be approache work in

afghanistan? guest: yes, i think it can. afghanistan is a different ball of wax. i would not want to draw the analogy to deliberately, but i think we need more troops. we need to take and hold ground. we cannot just go in and clear a space and leave because the bad guys come right back. additional troops make it possible to hold more geography. host: ed joining us from pennsylvania. and caller: i understand in 2008 when bush appointed petraeus to iran that obama was very critical of the appointment. can you elaborate? host: i think you meant iraq.

guest: it was president bush and senator obama. part of that might be politics. i do not remember what you are asking about, but it is unusual for a president not to be able to promote officers that they think are worthy of promotion. i am afraid i cannot help be beyond that, although i nobel pocatello and it is a great place. host: if you are interested in the testimony that obama gave back in 2007 and 2008 with general petraeus, go to our website c-span.org, when clicked on the video library -- and click on the video library.

afghanistan was not as dominant in the discussion, but iraq certainly was. brenda joining us from oklahoma city. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is the gentleman saying we are going to leave in 2011, then the locals will throw their lot in with ever who will be there permanently, but i believe they would want to throw their lot in with whoever is going to give them the chance to have freedom. the taliban obviously, they are not someone you would want to throw in with. guest: no, they are not, but if

it is the only game in town and had cut your neighbors head off, that is a pretty compelling argument. freedom is a strong force, but people have to think about their families and their lives, and that is the equation that a lot of afghan villages are facing. host: a sidebar stories that came out of the pentagon. robert gates looking to eliminate $100 billion in spending through military contracts. is that doable and if so, how? guest: that as a topic all in itself for a show. -- that is a topic all in itself for a show i think. i would say that there are a lot of players. there are contractors and subcontractors and at each level of profits and a staff are in existence, so if you could

eliminate some of that and streamline its, it makes sense, at least in my mind, that you could save a lot of money. absolutely. host: kathleen saying we will stay as long as there are no contracts. the war would end tomorrow if the draft was started. guest: certainly there is a lot of what there is called waste, fraud, and abuse in the contracting system, but i would say most of it is in country with the corruption that exist throughout the country. the draft -- i came into the army in the draft, and i would say that like any think it is a trade-off. what you get with the draft is a broad support for participation in the army and all the services because of the draft.

what you also get is a lot of unwilling participants who were not happy to be there. that has a bad effect on morale. all volunteer army is a much better army because everyone is there because they want to be there. i do not think you will ever see the draft come back in the way it was. you may see national service, but that is another topic for another day. host: david joining us from indiana on the republican line. caller: i was wondering, the list gm issue. what kind of players will we have in afghanistan mining the lithium? will a drawl other countries to the region -- will it draw other countries to the region?

host: explain the significance of what david is talking about in terms of the afghan economy. guest: lithium was one of the minerals identified in the 3 million discovery of minerals in the country. it promises great resources, much like oil anin iraq so the afghan government can finance itself. pffone of the world's richest copper mines in afghanistan. that was competitively bid. the chinese were successful bidders there. i would assume that with t the m and everything else would be handled in a similar way.

host: in a speech that we did cover by congressman steny hoyer the senior democrat and house of representatives spoke. he talked about the deficit of the economy and of national security and the democratic party. >> president obama also demonstrated that he learned still lessons of the bush administration with years of neglect allowed for the taliban resurgence. president obama listen closely to good use going forward in afghanistan. for the first time in years we have a clear counterinsurgency strategy in afghanistan. drawing on important cooperation from the pakistani government. based on the premise that a terrorist-dominated state will once again, as it did in 21, posed a direct danger to americans -- as it did in 2001,

posed a direct danger to americans. host: your reaction. guest: i think he is on the money there. strategically afghanistan as a very important place. if you look on the map, to the west is iran, i do not need to speak about that. to the east is the most neutralized border. both nuclear powers, are religious differences and geographical disputes going on between those countries. in the north you have the emerging stands, central asia with vast oil and other energy riches. government headed by some of the same former communists barrel

during the pre-1989 era. that is the next middle east if we continue to be dependent on fossil fuels. we need to be there. ii think that is part of what steny hoyer is talking about there. it is why we cannot feed that to the taliban and let it go back to an and governed area. host: our guest is tennessee haake. he attended law school at georgetown university. also a graduate from antioch college. james responding to the comments. nothing like a democratic politician undermining national security to gain advantage. we will go next to charles from virginia of the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call.

host: it sounds like you're listening to c-span radio. caller: i am. when it comes to afghanistan, my only concern is that it is not iraq. iraq is a mitropoulos compared to afghanistan. changing the hearts and minds of people in iraq was a lot different. they will basically do what they need to survive. i think that is the problem. i just do not see what the actual end -- i do not think we will ever be able to leave. will we build bases there? permanent basis?

the thing about afghanistan as we spend so much money over there, and if you want to raise my taxes to make sure our troops have the best equipment available, then raise them. i do not want to see another american life lost to poor technology or lack of proper equipment, but the fact that the chinese won the copper beeid, tt could have been done without the bid. afghanistan should start to pay the u.s. to help support our troops effort there. maybe the minerals would have been a good start. and if the american people knew we were not pumping so much money into this, then maybe we could stomach it a little bit more. guest: thanks for your comments.

you are right on the money on a lot of what you said. regarding the basis, we have what all of the finest basies in blogger rahokhrum. we have another big base near kandahar. in terms of paying as, hopefully some of the 3 billion, and let's hope it is to rebuild and dollars and minerals, will find its way towards them paying their own way. that is the hope. in terms of how your taxes for better equipment for the troops in the field -- in terms of higher taxes for better equipment for the troops in the field,,bravo. host: the key to success, and he

points out this. general petraeus may be the most celebrated general in the world today but he owes that to a president who refuse to listen to the naysayers and took an amazingly up eighth. president bush is the unacknowledged hero in the iraq surge. guest: if i guess you would have to throw ain who the senior senator from arizona in that group, because he was advocating for that as well, but i think the surge was the right thing in iraq. general petraeus made it the right thing. used those troops wisely. strategically. i am sure he will do the same thing if confirmed. only two thirds of the troops are and at the moment. 20,000 of the 30,000.

and we have yet to be at full complement and afghanistan. nato has promised more troops but they have not implemented it. hopefully they will. the drug business is funding a lot of what is going on there. it used to be money from other middle eastern countries. i think the taliban and al qaeda decided they wanted their own funding source. so they develop the opium trade in the late 1990's, and it is still surging.

interestingly, the military has now targeted certain senior drug kingpins if you will, as legitimate targets for predator strikes and night raids and that kind of thing. i think we're working that problem, but it is a big problem. it is necessary to cut off their cash it at all possible. host: this piece parking conversation. -- sparking conversation. harold joining us on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. as far as afghanistan, i do not know where to start. please let me finish. i have quite a bit to say. i am a military guy, too. i am not a general or officer. one thing i know is that when

you go into war, there are three things that you do. you make sure before you put your troops in jeopardy. you have an projected. you have a plan and you have an exit strategy. none of this was done. the objective was to get bin laden and bring him to justice. then it just kept changing. it's this thing was done right, it would happen over a long time ago. -- if this thing was done right, it would have been over a long time ago. we inflamed all of those people. when we expanded the war, and messed everything up. and i want to ask the general, these guys that advised bush that the war we were getting into our soldiers were not trained for.

after you capture, you have to provide security for the people. this mission is impossible. our troops is not changed for itrained for it. we can chase terrorists around the whole world. if we announce a date that we're leaving, they will just come back. we have those guys everywhere. they can stay there forever and come back when we leave. host: i appreciate the call from north carolina. guest: you can do without generals, but not without sergeants in the military. i appreciate your service. to the point you raised, and the were a lot of them. and i agree, you have to have an

objective. you have to have the means and then you have to know when you have one and have an exit strategy. bear in mind that 9/11 happened and we felt we had to go and do something. we went in there with maybe not all of those pieces in place at the moment. i will also a great dearant youk that iraq was a sideshow. we are paying a price for that now. finally, what the military calls stability operations, i think we know because of the errors in thiraq, where there was no plan, i think we know we have to do that. i think that is why general petraeus' plan in afghanistan

calls for this. we have agricultural department to come into the area's once they're cleared by the military and establish civil government to the best of our ability. i think we have learned our lesson there. i appreciate your service and your call. thank you, sir. host: the best news of the week, president obama fires his own general and then how years the bush general back. way to go, obama. a bush general. do you find irony in that? guest: i think general petraeus epitomizes the a political. i have to note that a lot of the special operations guys are dealing back-and-forth about the guyfact that general mcchrystal was a democrat and voted for president obama and

had fox news turned off in his headquarters. ironic. i think general petraeus and any general officer is interested in serving the best interests of the country, and regardless of who was in charge. we had a lesson and that last week about civilian control of the military. that is clear in that principle has been reaffirmed. . .

>> he will soon be in kabul. and he will provide the strong leadership required to meet the challenges ahead. and in the interim, the british would tunnel nick parker is the acting commander -- the british lt. nick parker is the acting commander of isaf. >host: not miss a beat, but thee will be a style difference between general mcchrystal and general patraeus, correct guest? guest: yes, but not the perceptible. general patraeus was one of the shapers of afghan policy, been mcchrystal's of superior, after

all. it is not like he is going to have to come in and get up to speed. he is up to speed on a daily basis. if it would not surprise me if he is there by the weekend, assuming he is confirmed, and taking charge. i also note that there is a rather major assault into konar province. part of the reason for that may be that we want to show everyone that we are not going to miss a step, particularly the enemy. host: we are talking with retired general timothy shaikh. david is a -- timothy hhaake. david is joining us from maryland.

caller: i think we need to stay in afghanistan and helped to stabilize the country. i know the russians were there and then they had a civil war for 30 years and then the english were there before that. we have to set our minds to it and finish the job here. if we cannot afford for afghanistan to just be lost. i do not think president obama was right giving us a time line to leave. these people, if you're lucky enough to be three years old in afghanistan kamal you know your whole life is a war -- in afghanistan, all of you know your whole life is war. guest: and that is right, david.

from the elections in 1970 through today -- take a and 30 years through today, afghanistan could well be a great ally of the u.s. in that region, much like a turkey is in the black sea region. i think ed is the long term strategy and hope -- that is the long term strategy and hope that we can preserve their, and also to provide some stability in that region, which is going to be the nexx middle east, as i read the tea leaves, anyway. host: on our twitter page -- guest: pakistan isikoff -- the solution to afghanistan lies in pakistan, i think.

without going too far down into the weeds, the pakistani's have felt they need to deal with their archenemy because they worry that india is there. that is why it is important, one of the reasons, for the u.s. to persevere there. if either country became dominant in afghanistan politically through surrogates, it would lead to escalation of tensions in the area. if there is a place where nuclear war could break are in the world, that is one of them, between india and pakistan. host: and yet, joe says, how would we feel of some foreign forces invaded the u.s. and said, they were not leaving until it is a a "fixed the way we like it"? guest: that is a different

perspective. if you talk to afghanistan people, they are sick of the war. and they want peace and they understand the symbols that the united states stands for. i think they would throw their lot in with the united states to a degree. everybody wants their own independent country and they want their values and religion to prevail, but i think afghans realize they need some help from the outside. all of the neighbors are meddling in their business now, so why not have a good strong byrbig brother as an allied? host: the next call comes to us from boston on the republican line, good morning. caller: i was a soldier in africa and what i have learned is that you can never win.

our soldiers killed in the battle there were being killed by the people [unintelligible] therefore, who are we fighting for? [unintelligible] the trend is that the and men unemployed in the united states [unintelligible] when are we going to count our losses and get out? host: which is one of the

questions that general patraeus will get today. guest: there is a lot in your question. i welcome you as a new citizen. what you have described in the first part of your question was an insurgency, and what has to happen, as mao said, to fight an insurgency, you must separate the fish from the sea in which it swims. in other words, the people. those farmers that are normal in the day and playing ied's at night, we have to convince them that is the wrong way. and that is a hard slog. karzai, i believe, because of the withdrawal of discussion is attempting to get the best deal he can with the pakistanis and

with the taliban i do not think that is in the best long-term interest of his country. but with this function of this talk about july 2011 we are going to start to draw down, everybody is running for the hills and trying to cut the best to deal after the americans are gone, supposedly. i think the president did a good job of the other day in convincing those people that we are not going to turn out the lights and shut the door and be done. we cannot afford to do that. plus, we have to say that too many of our young men and women have paid the old myth to sacrifice and have been wounded there just to walk away and -- paid the ultimate sacrifice and have been wounded there just to walk away at this point. the tensions that are there are still strong. we witnessed this attack in mumbai, which clearly was

precipitated out of pakistan. i am not saying the government was behind it, but forces in that country. that is a tender, tender situation that we need to work on every day so it does not get worse. afghanistan is a critical part of that equation. host: from your perspective we have the right approach in afghanistan? guest: i think we do. in so many things in life it comes down to whether we have the determination to persist or throw in the towel. i hope not. host: major general timothy haake, please come back again. guest: i will, steve. host: confirmation hearings for general david patraeus is taking place inside the dirksen office building and you will be able to watch it on live at -- online at

c-span.org. and confirmation hearings began about 10 minutes ago for elena kagan, questioning by a pet- senator patrick leahy. -- questioning by senator patrick leahy. joining us on the phone is susan for riccio of the "washington examiner" erb with some of -- susan ferrechio of the "washington examiner" with some perspective on the david patraeus confirmation hearings. what is your perspective on what perspective there will be coming from? guest: from the republican perspective, they will be getting the general to talk about when the troops will be leaving. a lot of them feel this deadline

is not secure -- a lot of the democrats feel this done is not secure, that they will push beyond this date. there will be asking if this will be a real withdrawal date. maybe not get everybody out in july, but to really begin the drawdown of troops. on the republican side, i think you will hear a lot of members talking about a couple of things. what has been controversial in the is the rules of engagement in afghanistan. some of the troops have been complaining that they feel they are compromise because they are not able to aggressively move against the enemy because the rules of engagement require them to seek permission, or delayed them when they could attack the enemy. and i think republicans will express concern over the july 2011 date for reasons that your previous guest was just talking about. it is really difficult to get

the afghans to cooperate when they know that the americans are going to be leaving. honi know that the chairman, cao -- carl levin of michigan, and the ranking republican have different viewpoint on this. carl levin believes the drawdown is necessary to convey to the afghans that they need to start taking over cancer -- security of their country. john mccain, on the other hand, feels like this date does nothing but let the enemy and know that we are leaving and it makes securing the country almost impossible for our troops. host: we are talking to susan ferrechio and looking live at the dirksen office building. they're preparing to question general david patraeus.

the numbers are on your screen. we will also bring in some of your comments on our twitter page. general david patraeus' last appearance got some attention because he had a very brief fainting spell blaming dehydration and lack of practice. do you think you will see anything like that this morning? guest: i doubt you will see i think he will make sure he is ready to render any questions. his confirmation is all but assured. last time he told the committee that you need to be careful about deadlines. and he suggested along the lines of what the republicans were saying, that a firm withdrawal date is not necessarily the best thing for the effort by the

americans to secure afghanistan right now. i think you are going to hear members on both sides of the aisle pushed him on that, and they are going to probably pressure him on the rules of engagement. he is probably going to be in the hot seat, even though both sides of the aisle respect him and he is going to get the job, he is going to have to define what is going on in afghanistan right now. things have to change. democrats want faster withdrawal and republicans want things to change so that the troops have more of an ability to go after the enemy. they are on opposing sides here and patraeus is caught in the middle. host: i would like for you to put the weeks and events into perspective. it is only -- the week goes the events into perspective.

it is only to take, but senator robert byrd, we have is that, and then we have senator -- and then we also have general patraeus and elena kagan meeting for confirmation hearings. and then we still have legislation that the white house still wants to see passed this fall. guest: the maintain is the time frame. the goal of the senate is to try to move the financial reform bill. now that senator byrd has passed away they are further from that goal because they need to pick up a few democrats. they have lost a few democrats on their side that to not like the bill and now they have lost robert byrd. if they can get that done, when they get that recess, they have

a little bit of time until august. then i think you will see them try to push the energy bill. the democrats are hoping for some element to put a price on carbon. there will be a push and pull on what this bill will apply, but most people feel that will be more of an energy bill verses a caravan trade bill. -- cap and trade bill. getting back to patraeus, on top of that, there is a war funding bill that has not passed. part of the reason that has not passed is that democrats do not like the direction the board is going in and they're hoping to attack on to battle some domestic items that republicans do not want to -- hoping to tack on to that bill if some domestic

items that republicans do not want to vote for. it will be a struggle getting it passed. host: on the appropriations bill, if it does not pass, what will the defense secretary need to continue to do to fund operations in afghanistan and elsewhere? guest: has happened in the past and the one problem he says is that if it goes on too long, he allowed to take money out of the essential programs that he feels will leave the pentagon ill- prepared to deal with the problems of the world. 33 billion is just for the war and i think the entirety at -- $33 billion is just for the war and i think the entirety of the bill is $60 billion and they cannot agree on certain items. it is very important that they get the war funding bill passed this summer. susan host: ferrechio, her --

host: susan ferrechio, her work can be seen on line at the "washington examiner" online. thanks for being with us. in an article about afghanistan by peter baker, he writes -- his most recent comments coming over the weekend at the g-20 summit in toronto. one quick note on what is an incredibly busy day -- of course, the house and senate are both in session and a house coverage will be coming in its at about 10 minutes from now. we are streaming on line not only the alain a cut -- elena

kagan hearings, but also the david patraeus confirmation as well. carol, thank you for patients awaiting. -- patiently waiting. caller: i have a few comments with regard to afghanistan, if i may. host: certainly. caller: the reason we have not been able to extract ourselves from afghanistan has become clearer and clearer. a lot of people, i am sure, do not know that the co for unocal, that was all tied into enron and

ken leia anlay and these so-cald funding of afghanistan with the minerals, the titanium and the copper, and all of the other minerals that lay dormant their, i do not think that is anything new. i think that they have known that for a while and they used 9/11 as a cover. host: from the "washington post" writing about the u.s. debt looms large after g-20. one of the figures that they put

forth in january, the obama administration predicted that the deficit would precede $1.5 trillion by the end of the year, but then a windoto window by thr 2015 -- to dwindle by the year 2015. next caller, go ahead. caller: just a comment about general patraeus, going back to 1966 and fort riley, kansas. they have as walking -- i was in the u.s. infantry in the army. they had as walking and gave us one canteen of water. -- they had us walking and it was one canteen of water. what i'm trying to bring out is the point of dehydration.

we are so far behind in our thinking about what should be done and what is being done. it takes hundreds of men to pass out before they realize, maybe they should give them a little more water. what i'm trying to point out is that generals are the most carrigan people i have ever in my life encountered. -- most arrogant people i have ever in my life encountered. they are walking gods. i think we do need them, but that is just a comment about generals. host: tony, thank you for the call. a twitter comment from a viewer -- at c-span.org we have a hub lead

you can watch the elena kagan confirmation hearings. you can also watch it from a number of camera angles. and you can see confirmation hearings bypass gas, past nominees -- by pass to guess, past nominees. next is a call from georgia, independent line. caller: i would like to give a little history about war and how people manipulate it. number one, after 9/11 we were going to get the people who attacked us. afghanistan was the target area. i'm not going to go into the reason we went into iraq. we were told things we found of were not true. we go back into afghanistan after president bush is gone.

obama comes into a nightmare. this strategy was not obama's. he put it on the generals to make this strategy. i'm tired of people saying he made this strategy. the last thing i would like to say is that afghanistan -- i hear taliban now, taliban, taliban. that is another reason we are there. we have to get back to the premise of finding those who attacked us and that is the main thing that i see. if you want longevity in war, you are going to get it. we will be there for another 10 years, i believe. host: focusing on yesterday's 5- 4 decision on gun rights in what is called a win for the nra and supporters of the second amendment, kathy connolly

rights writes about elena kagant she would be -- again, live coverage on c-span34 the elena kagan hearings. next caller, rg, go ahead. caller: what i can understand is that we have terrorist over there and we ahoskicannot make m

abide bb laws. i do not know why this country does non -- host: we are going to stop you there. i apologize for phone calls like that because that is completely inappropriate. please do not call back again. dan, go ahead. caller: i am a veteran. the main thing i want to talk about is mccaskill. he went on 60 minutes a while back and talked about the troops.

in my opinion that was a big mistake. the main thing about a war is a surprise and the secrecy. that man is a traitor and he needs to be picked up. host: thanks for the phone call. from the "financial times" the u.s. arresting 10 russian agents, including two in the new york city area and four in the d.c. area. next call is paul, on the independent line. caller: i was just calling about the cake in the hearings -- the elena kagan hearings and i just want to get to your thoughts on, generally, is it just going to be a resuscitation of her

political accomplishments and what she has done in the white house and in academia? or are they really going to go into high form of the accord -- the form of the court? i think it was senator jack and off on the committee. anyway, are the republican -- in-line host: i'm going to stop you there and take you to the house floor. 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable donna f. edwards to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore:

pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate . the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. -- party limited to 25 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority whip limited to five minutes each. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 10:20 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, for five minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, madam speaker. it would be unconscionable for this congress to fail to enact legislative protections for the nation's consumers after the worst economic collapse in 80 years. we must pass wall street reform when it comes before the house, hopefully later this week. we know what happened without adequate oversight. under the bush administration and previous republican congresses, the large financial institutions were granted free rein to undertake abusive

behavior. in the absence of well-enforced regulation, their actions triggered the great recession, plunging americans into economic distress. started in 2007 when the mortgage and credit crises hit, the recession hit hardest in 2008. millions of americans acutely felt that collapse through lost jobs, foreclosed homes and the destruction of their personal savings. collectively, americans lost $17.5 trillion worth of aggregate household wealth during that time. 401-k and emergency nest eggs wiped out. in the midst of this economic carnage, many of the financial institutions that precipitated the collapse had the chutzpah to turn to the same american families and ask for a bailout. for example, a.i.g. received

$170 billion in 2008's tarp bill and the federal reserve despite being engaged in a number of risky actions that led to its own predictive. a.i.g.'s profits became america's pain. we must not allow that to happen again. i support the visionary wall street reform that protects consumers from the abuses and deceptive practices that led to this crisis. it will create a consumer financial protection bureau that will consolidate consumer protections spread out over seven different federal agencies. the bureau will ensure transparency and financial product and transactions, providing consumers with greater protections on mortgages, credit cards and other financial products. unscrupulous mortgage lenders no longer will be able to hoodwink perspective homebuyers and home loans that the homebuyer cannot afford. not only did that practice lead to individual homeowners suffering eventually

foreclosures, it drove down equities in all homes as it exacerbated the financial collapse. i support wall street financial reform that properly regulates the financial sector, finally bringing transparency to the shadowy world of derivatives. in 2006, the derivative markets bought and sold and often repackaged was worth $668 trillion, that's with a trmbings, dollars. an astonishing high amount. the financial regulations that traded these derivatives did so in secret and when the assets failed, such as mortgage-backed securities, the financial sector was unprepared for the repercussions and the american families paid the price. i support wall street reform that provides an orderly liquidation for financial institutions that fail at the institution's expense, not the taxpayers. that means never again will the big banks receive taxpayer-funded bailouts.

large institutions must be prepared for an orderly winddown that does not require additional strain to the economy and does not require taxpayer assistance. this ensures that the liquidation is planned ahead of time in case it is needed. wall street reform states that taxpayers will never have to bail out them again. the wall street reform accomplishes the goals of protecting consumers, providing transparency to previously unregulated markets and ending too big to fail for taxpayer funded bailouts. it finally provides the financial protections for consumers and homeowners that have been lacking for far too long. wall street reform will help ensure that never again will american families be unprotected and left footing the bill for someone else's big mistakes. i strongly support wall street reform and encourage my colleagues to do so. never again should private risk become public responsibility. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 10:30 a.m. >> in the meantime, we take you live to the dirksen senate office building on capitol hill for the confirmation hearing just getting under way for general david patraeus for the u.s. and nato forces in afghanistan. he will replace general stanley mcchrystal after 8 "rolaine zone -- after an article in

rolling stone last month in which he made comments about members of the administration. live coverage on c-span. [gavel drops] >> good morning, everybody. before we begin today's hearing, i want to comment on the loss that our committee, the senate, and the nation suffered yesterday morning. robert c. byrd was a member of this committee for nearly three decades. and just as he did in all of his senate work, he was a relentless advocate for the enduring traditions of the senate.

including our respect for the legislative authority that the constitution places in our hands to exercise and to defend. he was an eloquent spokesman for the vital role that.com was placed in national security and foreign affairs and our constitutional system. he was a treasure colleague to the armed services committee, to the entire senate, and to the people of this nation. his life's work and his legacy will help guide us and help guide future senator. this morning? -- this morning, this committee considers the confirmation of general david patraeus to be commander of the international security assistance force and commander of the united states forces, afghanistan. general, you testified before this committee just two weeks

ago, and certainly, no one saw the events that would bring you to testify here again today. when confirmed, you will bring highly experienced leadership and a profound understanding of the president's strategy in afghanistan, which you helped shape as commander u.s. central command. i want to thank you for your willingness, as the president's request, to leave that position to take charge of the campaign in afghanistan. we appreciate your sacrifice, and that of your family. your wife, holly, is with you this morning. we all want to thank her personally for commitment and her sacrifices along the way. i must tell you, general, that her understanding of your doing your patriotic duty, as you are now taking over the command in

afghanistan, her understanding and support of that is truly inspiring. if the we profoundly thank you, mrs. patraeus. ordaz -- we've brownley thank you, mrs. patraeus. i also want to express my gratitude to general mcchrystal for his great service over three decades. fate takes strange pathways' at times. the general mcchrystal is a hallmark of leadership and character. the challenges we face are in many ways as complex or more complex than general patraeus in the rigid when he assumed command in iraq. news reports in afghanistan is that things are spotty. some normal activities have

returned to helmand province, and insurgents intimidation continue to threaten governance in the south. the karzai government has yet to live -- yet to deliver services in regions locally. and news reports suggest that minorities are concerned about karzai's overtures to taliban leaders through pakistani intermediaries. at our hearing two weeks ago, general patraeus emphasized that "a counterinsurgency operation is a roller-coaster experience." but he said that in his view the introductory has generally been upward despite the tough losses. i have long believed that the number one mission in afghanistan is building the capacity of the afghan security forces to be able to take increasingly -- increasing responsibility for their own security.

general patraeus said, two weeks ago that increasing the size and capacity of afghan security forces is "central to achieving progress in afghanistan." u.s. and isaf forces need to focus their resources and energy on this effort. there is a significant shortfall, still, of trainers to provide basic instruction to afghan recruits and mentors to imbed with afghan units in the field. building the capacity of the afghan security forces to provide security is simply not -- is not simply what we seek. it is what the afghan people seek. that is what we were told by a hundred or so elders in afghanistan last year. they told us that we should equip and train the afghan army to provide for their country's security and hen we should depart. the 16 delegates to the afghanistan peace jirga beginning at -- at the beginning of this month adopted a

resolution calling on the international community to "expedite the equipping and training of the afghan forces so that they can begin providing their own security for their own country and people pergo there are reports that there are relatively -- people." there are reports that there are relatively few recruit trained to sufficiently do this. there are over 70,000 combat troops. in the past, isaf reported that over half of afghan battalions were capable of conducting operations either independently or with coalition support. however, a recent report released just today by the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction finance and the capability rating system used by the training mission "overstated

operational capabilities of the afghan security forces" and has not provided reliable or consistent assessments. isaf agreed with that report. and it recently they have adopted a new standard for measuring afghan capability, by which measure a around one-third of afghan units are now determined to be effective with coalition support in conducting operations. however, even under the new measure, there are significantly more afghan army troops that could lead operations in kandahar in the 7250 afghan troops nowlin kingara. -- lead operations in kandahar, in the 7250 afghan troops in nowlin kingara.

-- now in kandahar. the isaf forces in and around mccown are will outpace the afghan forces by october -- in and around the region will outpace the afghan forces by october. this provides the opportunity to get more afghan combat capable forces south. to take the lead in operations there. having the afghan army lead operations in kandahar is the insurgencies worst nightmare. the afghan army enjoys the support of the afghan people and they are strong fighters. meanwhile, according to a recent "new york times" survey, only 40% of the afghans have a favorable view of the united states. the general patraeus, i hope you will probably review the deployment of cable afghan security forces to try to get more afghan troops down to the

south and in the leading operations there be for those operations are accelerated in the field in the fall. finally, a few words about the july 2011 date set by the president for the beginning of reductions in our combat presence in afghanistan. that decision also made clear that the pace of those reductions would be dependent on its circumstances at that time, and that the united states would continue a strong strategic command into afghanistan. that july 2011 date imports in a serrie sense of urgency to afghan leaders about the need -- imparts a serious sense of urgency in afghan leaders about the need for them to take the lead for their own security. president bush in november of 20 -- 2008 decided to blow for u.s. forces out of iraqi cities by

june of 2009 and to withdraw all troops by december of 2011. that decision helped the iraqi government focus on the need to take responsibility for the security of their own country. the afghan success, and ours, depends on that happening in afghanistan as well. we have already seen a positive effect of state -- of setting the july 2011 date to begin reduction of our troops. lieutenant general caldwell, who is in charge of training efforts in afghanistan told us that when general -- when president obama announced the date, slavery charge of the local leaders and boulders, resulting in a surge of recruits for the afghan army. general patraeus said that he agrees with the policy of

setting the july 2011 date. and indeed, he told me that if he ceases to do -- to agree, that he would advise his commander-in-chief, which he has the responsibility to do as a military commander. it is my hope, and i hope the senator mccain and other members of this committee would join in this, that we can vote on general patraeus' nomination by the end, of possibly, even today. thaksisenator mccain? >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank our distinguished with this for joining us here today for an end -- a very unexpected an extraordinary hearing. i want to welcome general patraeus' wife, holly. if we all know that general patraeus, like all of our fighting men and women, could never do his job without the support of his entire family.

as mrs. patraeus, we sincerely thank you and we think you made a wise decision many years ago to except a blind date with a young cadet. as i said two weeks ago, general patraeus, i think you're one of our finest ever military leaders. i hope that does not provoke the same reaction as it did then. but seriously, we are grateful for your willingness to answer the call yet again on another critical mission. you are an american hero and i am confident that you will be quickly and overwhelmingly confirmed. before i go further, let me say another word of praise for another american hero, general stanley mcchrystal. he is a man of unrivaled integrity and what is most impressive about his long military excellence is that how much of it remains cloaked in silence. if you understand fully how general mcchrystal

systematically dismantled al qaeda in iraq, he began to turn around are failing or in afghanistan -, we will always have a place in our hearts for general mcchrystal and in our history. quasi-agree with the president that success in afghanistan is "a vital national interest." this is the only viable path to true success, which i would define in afghanistan -- as an afghanistan that is increasingly able to support its people and create its own development and never again be a base for attacks against america and our allies. in short, the same results we are slowly seeing emerge today in iraq.

before heading to iraq three years ago, general patraeus, you told this committee that the issue was "hard, but not hopeless." i would characterize our mission in afghanistan the same way. nevertheless, many of the same people who were diffused about iraq are now saying so about afghanistan. but afghanistan is not a lost cause. afghans do not want to taliban back. they're good fighters and they want a government that works for them and works well. and for those who think the karzai government is not an adequate partner, i would remind them that in 2007 the maliki government in iraq was not only corrupt.com but -- not only correct, but we do with -- but week.

the challenges to push our partners to perform better. that is what we did in iraq and what we can do in afghanistan if we make it clear that we will stay as long as necessary to achieve it. as we did with iraq, not that we will start to withdraw on a matter what in july 2011. i appreciate the president's statement last week that july, 2011 is simply a day to 2 "begin a transition phase to greater afghan responsibility of." and for those who doubt the president's desire and commitment to succeed in afghanistan, his nomination of general patraeus to run this war should cause them to think twice. still, what we need to hear from the president and what our friends and enemies in afghan and -- in afghanistan and the region need to hear is that it withdraw of forces will be determine solely by conditions on the ground.

let me explain why i think the july 2011 date is so harmful. and what we're trying to do is to win the loyalty of the population, to convince people who may dislike the insurgency, but who also make distress their drug -- their government that they should align with us -- that this trust their government that they should align with us and take a risk. they will run if they think that we will begin leaving in the year. one song person has said, and "that is why they will not work with us. they say we will leave in 2011 and the taliban will travel their heads off -- will drop their heads off. this is causing afghan leaders to hedge their bets on us. this is not only making the war

harder, but making the war longer. if the president would say that success in afghanistan is our only withdrawal plan, whether we reach it before july 2011 or afterwards, it would make the war more winnable and hasten the day when our troops could come home with honor, which is what we all want. in addition to being harmful, the july 2011 withdrawal date looks increasingly unrealistic. if that date was made based on assumptions back in december on how much we could achieve in afghanistan and how quickly we could achieve it. but were never works out the way we assume -- war never works out where we assume. i think we're making, progress, but it is slow.

our operation in kingara is getting off to a slower and more difficult start than we expected. the dutch government is planning to withdraw soon. and it looks increasingly unlikely that we will see a pledge of 10,000 troops. none of this is to say that we are failing or that we will fail in afghanistan. it just means that we need to give our strategy the necessary time to succeed. we cannot afford to have a state of course -- a stay the course of approach when the facts on the ground are suggesting that we need more time. general patraeus has proved that we can win wars and we need to give him every opportunity and remove the obstacle to win in

afghanistan. >> thank you very much, senator mccain. general patraeus. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and thank you for the rapid scheduling of this hearing. i am humbled and honored to be nominated by president ioto the u.s. forces in afghanistan and to have the opportunity, if confirmed, to continue to serve our nation, the nato alliance, our non-nato coalition partners, and afghanistan in these new capacities. at the outset, i want to echo your sloot to the extraordinary service -- your salute to the extraordinary service of senator robert byrd. america has lost a great patriot. how would also like to say a few words about general stan mcchrystal, someone i have known and admired for nearly 30 years.

general mcchrystal has devoted his entire professional life to the defense of this nation and he and his family have made enormous personal sacrifices during his lengthy to appointments over the past nine years in particular. his contributions during that time were very significant. i can attest, for example, that the success of the surge in iraq would not have been possible without jennifer -- without general mcchrystal's on exceptional leadership of the forces there. similarly, the joint operations command and is the unprecedented tenured command of j. stock was extraordinary as well. during that time, he brought impressive vision, energy and expertise to the effort there. he made a huge contribution to the reorientation of hours

strategy and was a central figure in our efforts to get the inputs right in afghanistan, to build the organization said, needed to carry out a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign, to get the rights leaders in charge of those orders -- organizations to develop plans and to deploy the resources necessary to devote the implementation of those plans and concepts. we now see some areas of progress and its -- amidst the tough fight on going in afghanistan. the considerable credit for that must go to stan mcchrystal. as we take stock in f -- as we take stock in that, it is important to remember why we are there. the initial training of the attackers of 9/11 work -- was carried out out in afghanistan before they moved on to germany and u.s. flight schools.

it was in response to those attacks that a u.s.-led coalition in entered afghanistan in 2001 and defeated and outside and the taliban elements that allowed al qaeda to establish its to intense in afghanistan. in the subsequent years, however, the extremists were able to regroup, with al qaeda and establishing new sanctuaries in the tribal areas of pakistan and they have re- entered afghanistan to reestablished the control that they have had in much of the country. in light of those elements, the task in afghanistan is clear. indeed, president obama has explained america's vital national interest there. we will not tolerate a safe haven for terrorists who want to destroy afghan security from within, and launch attacks against innocent men, women, and children in our country and around the world. around the world. in