politics and clearly you could see from senator cornyn he was excited about playing offense. his numbers this week, the fund raising numbers that came in, his candidates are doing well in these open seat races that he has to defend and in some of these challenger races. >> but his comments and your questions, he kept using the word this is a dynamic year. a year really unlike many we've ever seen. and so how confident can you be? how do you really capture the mood of the voters in this particular year? >> every time somebody talks to me about confidence and polls i go to new hampshire in 2008 when we were convinced barack obama was going to win, and hillary clinton won it. so if we don't know the day of a primary who is going to win, what is going to happen five months from now is beyond us. the there is a perception that president obama is not doing the job, the democrats are not doing the job. they could come back, as f and we've seen stranger things happen, but right now i think the wind is at the republicans'

back and they seem to be sailing along. >> at the beginning of the cycle they didn't mings george bush's name at the beginning of the cycle. cornen now seems to think his stock has gone up and didn't mind talking about him. but it's amazing how things have changed since the beginning of 2009. >> and on messaging, we talked with him about checks and balances. but in fact is it going to be a state by state campaign messaging, or is there a national message? >> i think on the democratic side it is state by state. we saw that in pennsylvania when the republicans wanted to run against president obama, speaker nancy pelosi. while the democrats said i care more about washington pa than washington, d.c. and i care about jobs and the local economy. just like the democrats nationalized the election in 2006, 2008, republicans would love to and intend to nationalize in 2010 democrats would love to run on local issues. >> speaking of that, let me turn to capitol hill for the

last question. they just passed the financial reform. what are the next couple of months look like legislatively to tee utch for the election? >> well, legislatively we'll see how active they are coming up, is this going to be the big push that they have under the unemployment benefits coming up early next week when the new senator from west virginia is going to be sworn in and they're excited to have that pass. but are they going to slow things down and go into campaign mode? that's the usual practice at tend of the campaign. these members, especially these democratic members want to get back, they want to go campaign, they want to get their numbers back up and some of these races. so we'll see how busy it is. >> still have elena kagen to deal with. >> right. >> and on law, are you hearing the themes on health care, for example, that the republicans are in fact going to live with the law in the land and modify, or is there a sense that they really want to redo? >> there are a lot of

republican candidates campaigning on the repeal. and a lot of voters don't like parts of the health care, i don't think it's widespread sentiment. >> folks coming in, you hear repeal, replace, or just repeal. i think it's still going to be an issue. >> and how about financial reform legislation? >> i think this entire cycle is going to be about the larger issue of just how poor the economy is, unemployment. i think you're going to see that in every race, and i think financial reform. >> and both health care and financial reform feeds into that, how we're doing with our federal spending. that's it for our time. thanks very much for being with us this week. >> thanks.

>> they're all different. they have different tall rningts different dangers. >> this weekend, buy ogfer robert service on his trilogy of books on russian leaders. lennon, stalin, and most recently leon troll ski. learn about their relationships and developing their form of communism. tonight on c-span. >> e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson testified that bp has used over 1.8 million gallons of dispersants to date on the gulf of mexico oil spill, a volume yume never used before in the united states. this was part of her testimony at a senate appropriations subcommittee on commerce and science thursday looking into

the effects of using dispersants on the gulf of mexico wild life and environment. this portion of the hearing is an hour and 10 minutes. good morning, everybody. we have been advised by the floor that there will be a vote on or around 11:00 on financial, on the financial reform legislation. so, while we are waiting the arrival of lisa jackson, i'm going to move ahead with the hearing. we are so pleased that dr. larry robinson is here from noaa and when he concludes hopefully ms. jackson is here, and if not, we will go to those from the community and then go forward to hearing from the able administrator from the epa who i traveled to the gulf with.

this hearing is now going to come to order. it is an official hearing of the commerce, justice, science appropriations subcommittee, and the purpose of the hearing is to determine what is it that we know about dispersants, what is the impact that it is having on people, marine life and on communities. what do we know? can we count on what we think we know, and what do we need to know more? and as we get ready to put our bill for fiscal year 2011 together, we want to look at, are there things that we need to add in the appropriations committee to either the noaa budget or encourage it at epa and others to see what we do. our number one concern is the safety of the american people. safety of the air they breathe, the food they eat, and when a

catastrophe affects them, what is the consequences of that catastrophe? we really salute our president for being compassionately involved in this issue, having talked with him, and then having traveled to the gulf with key team members like you, ms. jackson, and we know that the administration is deeply committed to really not only stopping the leak, but making sure that we contain the negative consequences of the leak. so today is day 86 of this national catastrophe, and the world is waiting to see if the new cap will stop gushing, and i'm holding this hearing to examine the use of oil dispersants in response to the spill. as of july 13th, which was yesterday, bp had used 1.8 million gallons of oil dispersants in the gulf, over 1 million of these on the surface of the water, 735,000 below the

surface. the dispersants, and we need to know, what does that mean? has that been good? has that been bad? or is the information out there that we really need to pursue? what we do know is that dispersants break up oil slicks into small particles. the tool that has been advised to prevent oil from washing up on the shore to so negatively impact habitat and wildlife and the beaches and public health. we know that dispersants break up in small droplets, and that they sink in the water, and that they become invisible. now, when they become invisible, they are eaten up by tiny microbes and that is then part of the food chain and gee, what does that mean? and what does being invisible mean? because it is invisible, it cannot be overlooked and underevaluated. i am concerned, because i feel and i believe, and my reading

verifies that we don't know enough about the impact of dispersants and dispersed oil when people, marine life and air quality. i am very concerned and my question is, should we ban them? should we take a time out from using them? what are the short and long-term consequences of using them? i have been a member of congress for some time, and there are those who say that well, that is a liability, and i want to turn that experience into an asset, so i believe that whatever i am told, i want to trust, but verify. i believe that often we are told don't worry, honey, we will take care of you and i won't hurt. we only then find out that a very good product that we thought was a good product turns out to have vile consequences. i don't want dispersants to be the agent orange of this oil spill. and i want to be assured on behalf of the american people that this is okay to use, and

okay to use in the amounts that we are talking about. so, there are questions about how does it move? where will it go? do we clean it up? is it toxic? does it create dead zones and questions that have been raised in the public domain and people sitting at the table, both really well known and well respected scientists, and those who have been advocate. so, what happens to the food chain? the use of dispersants in the deepwater horizon spill in this magnitude is unprecedented. in exxon "valdez," we used 250,000 barrels, and by comparison, deep water, the biggest oil spill in history now uses 35,000 to 60,000 barrels a day. wow. so, we used more in ten days than the whole valdez

experience. responders tried to use these dispersants at the valdez spill, but only used 4,000. bp has used 1.8 million gallons. such a use of dispersants seems to be an unchartered territory. dispersants have never been used underwater like this. so, i'm here to listen to those people that have been confirmed by the senate to tell us the truth, and we encourage you, today, speak truth to power. speak truth about what you know. speak truth about what you don't know. don't pull any punches and knowing both of you, as i do, i know that you won't. i would really ask on behalf of the people and those watching c-span, don't use an acronyms that we told bp we would use the rt and then go back to refer the rnc and dnc and keep the

politics out of it. we are not going to talk bt it like that. do like the vice president says, straight talk and plain talk and that is what the people want and what i want. let's really put our questions, our concerns and the good news we know out in the sunshine. we have to learn from the lessons past, and one of which is that we need to know early on so we don't have to go find out the negative consequences later. when i went to the gulf, senator harden and i went to the gulf and we were told that the beaches was safe and the seafood was safe and that our people were safe. well, that is the where we are now. so i am now going to turn our testimony over to our witnesses. i want to, before i turn to both miss jackson and mr. robinson is

to say why some people are not here. my very good friend and colleague, a mn of tan of the g senator shelby is on the floor, because that is now when we are moving the financial reg and this hearing was scheduled well in advance to comply with the committee rules, so senator shelby is here represented by his staff. he will submit questions in writing, and you know he is a man that is duty-driven in terms of protecting the people of the gulf. alabama is one of the states affected, so he will try to join us. so, the second issue is that we invited a scientist from alabama to testify, dr. schiff and again a seasoned scientist from the gulf, from the university of alabama. regrettably, dr. schiff fell and broke his ankle and he is unable to travel. we wanted you to know that we

also invited him, and he will be submitting testimony for this record. so, we are going to do long distance. we didn't want to get into videoconferencing and so on with the votes. and the other is that we invited the nalco company. can i have the paper so i can explicitly read who they are. the nalco company represents the chemical industries that manufacture dispersants. they declined to participate in the hearing. i want the record to show that in addition to government officials, those who work in the advocacy community, and we also wanted those who represent the chemical industry, because i do believe in better living through chemist chemistry, also declined to participate. i want the record to show that

the nalco did decline, that its board of directors is made up of bp, monsanto and lockheed, and i'm sorry that they didn't come, because i think that they do a lot of good things, and there are questions that we have. but, it is america, and we are not goiing to subpoena them for this hearing, but we might subpoena them for another hearing and i reserve that right. now though, i really would like to turn to who we do know and who is at the table, and who the american people count on. i want to ask dr. -- masters? i remember on the trip to the gulf, you said you were a chemistry person and a woman of the bayou. lisa jackson.

>> thank you, and good morn, chairman. thank you for having me and i do look forward and seeing rankk member shelby and other members if they can join us. thank you for inviting me to talk about dispersants and epa's role. epa is the only acronymly use for environmental protection agency in responding to the deepwater horizon rig explosion. i want to start by expressing my condolences to those families who lost members of their family in the explosion. we owe them our very best. as we know efforts by bp to stop the oil release continues today. while the environmental disaster that the gulf of mexico is facing right now has no easy answers, epa is committed to doing the job, protecting the communities the natural environment and human health from the spill, itself, as well as any concerns resulting from the response to the spill. additionally at the president's direction, i have personally traveled to the gulf, the region i did grow up and still consider

my hometown, new orleans, six times over the past few months. i will be leaving for my seventh trip right after this hearing. the united states coast guard is the national incident coordinator and has the primary responsibility of managing the response effort, but epa has a large role in providing technical and scientific assistance to the coast guard as the response continues. since the crisis began, epa has more than 200 staff working on the emergency response including scientists, engineers and contractors and other experts throughout the country. in in addition to the role of assisting the cocoast guard in the management of waste generated from the spill, we are performing rigorous testing of air, water and sediment, and this is to ensure that communities are protected as we respond to the bp spill. all of this information is being made public at www.epa.gov/bpspill as quickly as we can compile it. epa has a role with dispersants

which are chemicals applied to the oil the break it down into small droplets. ideally, the dispersed oil mixes into the water column and is naturally diluted and into microcoppic organisms. there is popular media saying that the microbes are thriving in the gulf. these are available for spill response in cleanup efforts, but decisions for the use are made by the coast guard as the federal on scene coordinator for this response. in the use of dispersants we are faced with environmental tradeoffs. the long term effects on aquatic life are largely unknown and we must ensure that the dispersants used are as nontoxic as possible. to date, bp has used as you said almost 1.8 million gallons of dispersant, a volume never used before in the united states. the coast guard was first asked by bp shortly after the spill to

authorize use of the dispersants, and the technique was to prevent it from reaching the surface, and reach the shorelines and theest wa estuard the nurseries. the data was to monitor the dispersants, and then the data was analyze and showed that effectiveness could be approved and monitored on a daily basis and it was by labs at university of louisiana labs. and we would want to continue to be effective and monitor the impact. after the monitoring system was in place, the coast guard conditionally granted use of the dispersants after it made clear that it reserved the right to halt the use of subsidy dispersant if we determined at in time if impact of the environment outweighed the benefit of dispersing the oil. there is good news.

the good news is that we have not seen significant environmental impacts from the use of dispersants so far. dissolved oxygen levels remain at acceptable levels which is a good indicator for overall aquatic life in the site of the spill. results of water monitoring do not show dispersants on or near the shoreline. yesterday, the state of louisiana re-opened some state waters to fishing after tests showed no presence of oil or dispersants. the coast guard and epa issued a directive to bp on may 26th, instructing bp to apply no more than 15,000 gallons of dispersants per day and to halt the surface application unless conditions on the ground limited the use of other methods of dealing with the oil. skimming, and burning. since that directive was issued on may 26th, we have seen the total daily volume of dispersants used fall by 72% from their peak levels. we also ordered bp to work with

federal government scientists to identify less toxic alternatives and two weeks ago epa released the first round of scientific testing of these alternative dispersants. the good news there is that none of the currently authorized dispersants show endocrine disrupting activity and appears that the products have the similar impacts on the aquatic life tested. we await additional rounds of scientific testing which we expect in the near future. madame chairman, we are in a situation with no perfect solution. as we emerge from the response, i believe that we need to revisit the contingency plans and the product schedules that preauthorize dispersant use. ed a disall we need future studies on the impact of the dispersants on human health and in particular the environment. as a new orleans native, i know the importance of the environment to the economy and the culture of the gulf coast, and we have a great deal of rebuilding to do, and i enurge that we do everything in our

power to ensure a strong recovery and future for the gulf. because as we know efforts by bp to test the new cap continue today. we will all know more in coming hours and days. i remain hopeful that the flow of oil will slow or it will be stopped completely. and with any significant reduction in the flow of oil there should be a significant reduction in the amount of dispersant used, further reduction. the people of the gulf prefer collection of oil in lieu of dispersant use. so we ask that bp live up to that request. i welcome your questions at this time and that concludes my testimony. >> thank you, ms. jackson. we turn to dr. larry robinson, the leader in science at the national -- from noaa. we want to thank dr. robinson for being here. i had an extensive conversation with dr. la krshchucco and i kne

is on travel and rather than delay the hearing we felt that dr. robinson would invariably represent her and we ask you to proceed. >> thank you. okay. thank you, and all of the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on the national oceanic and atmospheric administration's role on the deepwater horizon oil spill response and use of dispersants. i am the assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the critical roles that noaa serves in the oil spills and importance of our contributions to protect and restore natural resources and communities and economies affecteded by this tragic event. the deepwater horizon spill is a

stark reminder that large oil spills occur and we must rebill and maintain our response capacity. when a oil spill occurs, there are no good outcomes. once oil has spilled, responders may use a variety of oil spill countermeasures to reduce the adverse effects of spilled oil on the environment. for the deep horizon spill, the unified command's posture has been to fight the oil offshore and reduce the amount of oil that comes ashore using a variety of countermeasures, including dispersants. chemical dispersants can be an effective tool in the response strategy, but like a methods involve tradeoffs in terms of effectiveness and potential for collateral impacts. consideration of what we have learned from both research and real world experience has factored into the decision-making on the use of dispersants for this spill. research on the effectiveness and effects of the dispersants

and dispersed oil has been under way for more than three decades, but vital gaps still exist. one area of focus has been on determining the toxicity of long-term effects of the dispersants, and dispersed oil on sensitive marine life. it is now clear that the effect of the dispersed oil declined rapidly in concentration of ocean mixes and degrades faster than untreated surface oil or shoreline oil. the effects of the dispersed oil on marine life depends on concentration and duration of exposure of organisms to the dispersed oil. at the sea surface, early life stages of fish, shell fish are much more sensitive to juveniles than adults on the dispersed oil. there are no data on the toxicity of the oil to deep sea marine life at any stage, so we have to extrapolate based on

existing knowledge. however, at both the surface and sub-surface, modeling and monitoring is confirming that the dispersed oil concentrations decline rapidly with distance from the well head as it mixes with sea water and moves with the currents away from the treated areas. noaa has been conducting chemical analysis of the seafood collected after the deepwater horizon. that is fin fish and oysters for polycarbons or phs, madame chairman to measure the uptake, and these compounds by oil on marine species. to date, none of the seafood samples analyzed for these compounds have concentrations that exceed the epa and fda guidelines ensuring that the seafood is reaching the marketplace is safe to eat.

to help support additional research, the administration has requested supplemental funds to support dispersant research associated with the deepwater horizon oil spill. if appropriated the $2 million requested by the president will allow noaa along with the epa and the department of interior to support research to begin to provide a better understanding of this short and long-term implications to the environment and the human health associated with the spill and the application and surface and undersea applications of dispersants. the dynamic nature of the deepwater horizon oil spill has created many questions. for these questions, noaa has launched a one-stop-shop response to the oil spill questions. originally designated for the

respondents, www.geoplatform.gov shows that all oil shorelines and other positions of research ships be put into one interactive match. this public site is to facilitate transparency and communication and coordination among a variety of users from federal, state and local responders to local community leaders and the public at large. as the response of the spill continues the unified command will continually re-evaluate the response strategies, actions and planning. noaa will continue to provide scientific support to the unified command. i would like to ensure you that we will not relent in our efforts to protect the livelihoods of gulf coast residents and mitigate the environmental impacts of this spill. in conjunction with other federal agencies we will continue to monitor the use of dispersants and as new

information is generated we will appropriately advice the unified command. thank you for allowing me to testify on noaa's response efforts and i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. >> thank you very much, dr. robinson. the impact of this oil spill is not only in the gulf states. and the consequences of issues, safety, like safety of the seafood and the food goes far and wide. we, in the state of maryland, rely heavily on our friends in the gulf for oysters, for the well-known and yummy gulf shrimp, and not regrettably, but they are a good supplement to our wonderful chesapeake bay blue crabs. we need to know that seafood is safe, and the american public needs to know that the seafood is safe for the simple reason

that we want them to continue to feel comfortable buying gulf products so that the economic consequences is not multiplied where first of all they have closed the fishing areas, and that i have closed the beaches, but they have closed the fishing areas and then people say, well, i'm not going the buy it, because i worry about it. one, we need to insure the safety and then we need good public information about that. i want to come back to that, but i want to go right this idea of the unified command and who does what. i have been concerned about the unified command, because it sounds, to me, like when i heard it, it sounded so cool and command and control and decisive and quit-witted and swift of boat and foot. but when i got, there it was a committee. and it was a committee of koord nays or the and i'm not knocking

it, because the enormity of this is something that also quite stunning to see. all of the boats and all that is affected and the vastness of 7,000 miles of gulf coast shoreline, but who -- ms. jackson, when you make your recommendations, is it the coast guard and this unified command call the shots. are you advisory to the coast guard or could you, or do you have the power to ban or limit the use of dispersants or any other product that you would deem scientifically based would have a negative consequence? what power do you have to act? >> the flashl incident commander is retired admiral thad allen and the federal on-scene coordinator has rotated. it is currently admiral z and i

can't pronounce the last name, and so we will call him admiral z. but it is a succession of admirals, but they are the final decision-makers in any chain of command, there is a pyramid and they are at the top porting directly to secretary napolitano and the president. that said, as head of the environmental protection agency, i have made my opinions and views and scientific concerns known on a range of issues during this response, and admiral allen has been very receptive, very receptive to understanding that there are dimensions to this response that are environmental, not simply about the operational day-to-day fighting of the oil. >> so, can you ban dispersants and limit their use or does he have to give the approval? >> i think it is is a matter of untested law as to whether epa, and there is no permit that epa

has given to allow the use of dispersants, so i would not know and i'm not an attorney, but -- >> no, but you are the head of epa, so if you said, admiral allen, this, we are now heading into a danger zone, or flashing yellow light, so significant, better be safe than sorry, that i want to ban or limit the use of dispsants, could you have the power to act unilaterally. >> i do believe i do, chairman, but i want my lawyers to get you a answer in writing. >> but that is a answer you needed to know from day one, ms. jackson, because every one of us here at the table are coastal senators, and i have to tell you that we love the coast guard and they are operational people, and they do search and rescue and they have the authority to clean up a limited oil spill if it would occur god forbid in the bay, and there are lakes, et cetera, but the coast guard are

not scientists. they are not scientists, but they are under the department of homeland security, which means they are protectors, so how would they know whether your idea was good or not when you are the idea basis, and mr. green science combined with you are the repository of scientific knowledge in these fields. >> part of the reason i am hesitating is twofold. number one, it has not been tested, and i have not had to walk into admiral allen's office even figuratively and say, that i think that you need to stop. he has yet to disagree when i have been forceful in saying that we need to do something. that why we have directives and one more thing, chairman, there is a -- >> notice, i'm not being critical of you and we are walking a public policy areas where we need to really tighten up so we don't skrup. screw up. >> i absolutely agree. you started with the idea of the

unified command and one of the public policy decision has to be how do you operate on the ground which is to work in a large org sooigs and ensure there is a chain of sxhand that ecommand t the federal government, and that is something to discuss. i think that unified command makes sense on a smaller spill, but on something like this, there needs to be additional clarify. but i want to acknowledge the role of noaa because they are scientific advisers to the coast guard. >> i presume they are scientific advisers to you? i mean, don't you talk to each other? >> constantly. >> the way i saw you in action that day -- >> yeah. >> but i was impressed with that aspect of it. >> yes, ma'am, but they are also, they have a legal role to advise the coast guard on science, because they have a trust responsibility to the ocean and the atmosphere. >> i will come back with senatosenator

s who have lived through oil spill and the valdez, and i want to make sure my colleagues have time to ask questions. again, we are not bashing anybody, but here as i understand it, epa had concerns about the amount of dispersants being use and the amount that was being used to end also were concerned enough to direct bp to stop using them on the surface. am i correct? >> that is right. >> and that you then gave that advice to admiral allen? is that correct? >> essentially, yes. >> then what happened? did they begin to limit their use, and then who monitors that? and it says in my reporting data that it was limited by 72%, decline. was that for one day or has that

been persistent, and then why did you ask them to limit it if everybody felt this was okay? so, my question was did you ask that dispersants be limited? why did you ask that? and when you ask that, who paid attention or didn't pay attention to you, and then who ensures the compliance with the unified command's directive. >> thank you, chairman. a couple of things. yes, i remain and we remain at epa concerned about the volume of dispersant used as of date. as we have all noted, this is the largest volume kwoo uused i country. it has been used for 15 years, but it is the volume, and any person whether they have a chemistry degree or not remain concern, and certainly, remain concern about that, and we have had many, many concerns about that. i did express concerns to admiral allen and the result was

a directive, directing bp, cosined by the coast guard and epa to use no more than 15,000 gallons of dispersants in the subsea and to use spraying, aerial spraying of the chemical for lack of a better term, as a last resort. the day that directive was issued or the day before and don't quote me on dates, bp had gotten up to 70,000 gallons of chemical used in one day. that was an alarming number. >> yes, and to go to our friends in the where we should have had lessons learned from the valdez which was a horrific experience for our neighbors in alaska, they used 250,000 gallons for the whole spill. >> yes, chairman. i want to compare and contrast with respect to the senator who knows her state well, but i do want to talk about the valdez incident and now, because there are very important scientific

issues here. principally, the gulf of mexico is no prince william sound, and of course, prince william sound is no gulf of mexico. we are talking about a different climate and different type of crude, and we are talking about a -- >> talk about the valdez with her. let me finish with mine, and i don't mean to cut you off, but we have a vote at 11:00, so here is my question. so, why did you tell them to limit it? were you that concerned about the unknown factors of dispersant? why did you tell them to limit the use? >> absolutely. because there are scientific unknowns. we had to make decisions that are a series of tradeoffs and basically in common language, it was either nothing or in moderation. and in my best judgment was that it should be in moderation, but we should not say no, you may not use the dispersant, because at the time, we were risking that which we have all seen on tv which is large amounts of oil at the surface which got by the

skimmers and got by the burners and would end up in the marshes where they do the most damage and in the shallows. that tradeoff is not easy. every single thing being done out at sea comes at cost. burning has air pollution risks and wildlife risks and skimming has wildlife risks, but the simple question was, do you say no or do you say in moderation. >> so you said in moderation, and i am going to ask you to submit in the record what you think additional research needs to be done and what needs to be done in as we move forward in our appropriations. if i might, colleagues, i want to go to mr. robinson, because, does or does not noaa have a protocol to evaluate the safety of seafood? >> yes, ma'am, we do. the first step we take is very conservative with regard to the fisheries closures. we look for any visible evidence

of oil, and we project whether the oil may go in the next couple of days, and so the first strategy is to limit the possible take of fish from any areas that have been impacted by the oil. the next thing that we do in partnership with other federal colleagues at fda, epa and the states is that we develop a fairly comprehensive seafood safety protocol. we have actually taken samples from the gulf area to analyze them not only for oil, but for some of thestituents of oil, and the polysaccharides that i mentioned earlier that are toxic to human beings. thus far, we have not found any evidence of these contaminants in any of the species that we have taken outside of the contaminated area. so, so this is a fairly

comprehensive set of protocols that we have done, and i want to emphasize in collaboration with our colleagues in other federal agencies that includes the states who are trustees as well. i want to point out, however, that our jurisdiction is outside of the three-mile area. off of the coast. >> and whose jurisdiction is within the three miles? >> that is the states. >> and then who certifies the states? >> the states have -- >> in the level of competency to test for this? >> the states work with the fda. >> work with, but who -- does fda in the saying, because it has got to be a noaa and fda safety on the seafood. >> that is correct. so fda works onp the stapts to ensure that the fish does not reach the marketplace that is taken with them the three-mile limit that is contaminated with any of these products, and we

provide any assistance they need. >> we will come back to you, i know that i have been taking time, and i want to turn to senator who has lived all of the geography regardless of it. senator makowsky. >> i want to get to the seafood effort, and the coordination between what is happening with the state level at three miles and what noaa is doing, because the fish could care a less where the three-mile marker is, and then how we market our products. we want to be able to ascertain that yes, in fact, our seafood is safe regardless of where it comes from. >> that is correct. >> and so the word that gets out about the safety of our seafood and the process that has gone through and whether it is the

fda working with the states or noaa that the assurance is given, because ki tei can tell s far away as alaska with the salmon, our seafood is impacted as what is going on in the gulf as i'm sure that senator mikulski's seafood is in this area of the gulf. so to people, seafood is seafood, and if it is not safe, that will impact all of us. i want to ask you, dr. jackson, where we have come since the valdez, and i know that prince william sound is not the same conditions as the gulf of mexico, but it is different spill and different climate, but one thing that seems to strike me as commonality here is 20 years ago when the exxon "valdez," we weren't certain how

safe these dispersants were. we were concerned about their use then and now 20 years later, we are concerned about the use of dispersants or certainly the volume of the dispersants used, as we are dealing with the impact of the deepwater horizon. can you tell me how much study epa has actually conducted since the exxon "valdez" in terms of use of dispersants and not only their usage in an environment like prince william sound, but hodo you make sure that we really understand in the various conditions that are out there that the levels that are being used are appropriate? give me some background on the research here. >> thank you, senator. there has been significant research not only by epa on dispersants since the exxon "valdez" incident in the '90s and that being said, i will be

clear at the outset, it is not enough research. we will get for you for the record a list of the varying studies. some were done from the national academy of sciences which is one from the 2005-2006 era -- >> all of the conditions -- >> that is looking at the coastal southern louisiana conditions and there have been studies set up by the institute after the "valdez" and woods hole has done a variety of work, and there is a annual conference that noaa has and larry knows the name of, and dr. robinson will, but dispersants are routinely subjects of research papers and after every oil spill, and sadly, there are small incidents that are not infrequent, and there is a look at what happened with the dispersants. part of the reasons they are not used in the gulf region for example within three miles or near shore is a result of the people's belief that as you get

closer to the shallower waters, it is not use it. there is a significant bo of tests. >> is there in your opinion enough evidence to suggest that it is in fact not worth it when you get that much closer into shore? i mean, are we defining the dispersants in and of themselves pollutants? >> the dispersants are considered -- i'm not sure -- close to shore, i would defer to the research out there and the experts, but i believe there is more than ample reason not to want to use them near shore in part because of the reason they are affected is they degrade quickly, but you need to give them time to degrade in the deep ocean so they won't show up. our samples are showing up negative for dispersants near shore, and that's presumably because they are breaking down in the time it takes for the material to reach the shoreline. we don't see it in air. we don't see it in water, so

something is happening. >> the research that has been done prior to deepwater horizon, has the research been focused equally on the volumes used? or are we just talking about the various products? how much has been done on volume and safety there? >> well, we will get your response for the record, senator, but i'm not personally aware of any research on volume or upper limit, and another crucial piece of research gap is on this sub-sea dispersant. >> because this is the first time we have seen it applied directly at the source of the spill, is that correct? >> that is right, senator. >> and so, we have not yet done that level of research, whether it is noaa or any other agency, but you are suggesting to me that we have not done that research anywhere? >> that is correct, senator. >> is that equally true of

internationally? have the norwegians or anyone done research out there or a source done out there beyond the national research done? >> there was some limited testing i believe in europe, and we will get you that information for the record as well, senator. it is not certainly the body of research that you would want in dealing with this matter, obviously, because this is an unprecedented event, and we had to look at that research and then design a program to try to deal with fact that we were dealing with unknowns here. >> well, i think that we do recognize that this is unprecedented, but we also recognize that we have been operating in offshore conditions for decades now. we look to dispersants as a means of responding in the event of these terribly tragic accidents, and i think that in order to put, to put the issue somewhat at ease, it is clear that we need to do the

sufficient testing, not in all areas, where we are concerned of course of what goes on not only in the gulf of alaska area, but as we look to explore and develop even further north. those are different conditions altogether. we need to know, we need to have that assurance that in fact these dispersants do what we hope they do, and do not add additional risk when we are dealing with the spill. thank you, madam chairman. >> as we turn to senator lo lautenberg, i would like to point that the research council had published a in 2005 when oil spill dispersants and it was a compilation of the work that had been done primarily in the '90s and early 2000.

in 2001, a lot of our thinking shifted. this i a good document but it ends in 2005. the work was done primarily in the 1990s. they have a question that goes like this, better information is needed to determine the window of opportunity and percentage effectiveness of dispersant application for different oil types, different oil types in different environmental conditions. then it goes on to say we know something and what we know is based on '96, '97, tet cetera. so we have some research. but that's the nature of research, you always need new and better. i would kpend to you and your staff this really the executive branch. we're an acommiee, we're an appropriations committee, you're the ones with the research to be

poring over this and also then see what else we know, but senator lautenberg who has been a staunch dwerefender of the co and we were happy to join with him in telling the president we don't want offshore drilling and a real champion of the environment. >> thank you very much, chairman, despite my tardy arrival, i had an tunt to listen to our most competent chairman remind us about what we've got to do to make sure that what we're putting in the water is more dangerous or as dangerous in part as the oil spill. and it's interesting as we talk about the safety, i think subliminally there are questions about the efficiency of this material. and i don't know whether that question has been fully answered, but i'm announcing that i will soon introduce the

safe dispersants act. the bill requires long-term testing approval and disclosure of all ingredients in dispersants before they can be used in response to a spill. i am one of those who still is opposed to offshore drilling in the atlantic, but for areas where drilling continues, the law's got to require robust testing and disclosure of all chemicals and dispersants. and so i want to -- i'm glad, happy to see you, these two expert witnesses, lisa jackson has new jersey flowing through her veins and that makes her a better student and a better expert on what kind of things we have to worry about were we get to our coastline. current law requires only a minimal safety testing of

dispersants. and while you, ms. jackson, have taken steps to go beyond what the law requires, do we need changes in the law to mandate a more complete range of tests that would better protect the health of workers, residents and marine life? >> yes, sir. i believe we do. i also believe the law would give us critical transparency and openness protections that right now epa cannot provide by law. >> so it's very obvious at least to me and i'm sure to my colleagues thats law ought to be changed to give the public the right to know about health and environmental effects, chemicals in the dispersants. the one thing, there's an old expression about what you know can hurt you. here, what i come away with is what we don't know can hurt us.

we've got to step up to this and do our work in advance and not be relying on catchup to find out whether or not these dispersants, the chemicals therein, are threatening to human health and the environment. on may 20, epa ordered bp to find dispersants that's less toxic than the one it was using. bp refused and to this day continues the same material. now, a, how can bp simply ignore the directive? and does epa have enough muscle, enough strength in law to get to issue a command that says hey, you've got only a limited time to continue the use of these

without responding? what's the situation there, ms. jackson? >> well, sir, i think it's obvious that bp has always favored the use of dispersants. they don't necessarily think they should be limit and i they like the one they've clohosen. i think their answer was designed to throw concern on all dispersants so we would have to acknowledge that which is a truth and brought out in this hearing which is that we need more research and information on all dispersandispersants, that only a bp problem. that is something that i think needs to come out of this issue. so, yes, we clearly have the authority to order them to switch or to order them to use dispersants at a much lower volume. they are doing that. they haven't sprayed in i think five or six days, they have not sprayed dispersant.

that's through constant management of operational process. but we need more information and one of the things i certainly hope comes out of this is information not only on what's in the chemicals but different and better testing so that we, dr. robinson and his staff and my staff don't have to try to run models to come up with judgment calls on the fly. >> well, as you heard me say, next week i'm going to be introducing the what we're calling a safe dispersant act. it requires long-term testing, approval, disposal of all ingredient and dispersant before it can be used and response to a spill. do you think that this might be a sensible course to track? and to get on with that? >> yes, senator, we will review

the actual bill, i think you sent it over maybe yesterday. we will look at the language but the intent and principles you've outlined line up well with the greater transparency, additional testing, hopefully a move to less toxic dispersants. dispersants are much less toxic, that same nes reports clutds they should be a first response use but there are critical questions about volume, how they're apply and we should be able to get even less toxic dispersants. >> and with the regional character of the weather and stream flows, et cetera. thanks very much, madam chairman. >> well, thank you for your leadership, senator lautenberg. we look forward to looking at that legislation and perhaps being joined as an early co-sponsor with you, your work early on on particular superfund cleanup and others is actually

legendary and you've made a difference and you've got a real expertise and we look forward to working with you. >> thank you. >> what i would like, before the vote begins, i will have a question from senator shelby. and it's this -- i'll come back to that. but i really have a question for both of you. lessons learned from other countries. and particularly those that are our allies that share our values around safety and efficacy, whether it's someone pharmaceuticals or dispersants. the uk, as i understand it, banned dispersants. that gave me pause. and in fact, it gave me heartburn that the uk would ban it, a nation surrounded by water, and if the uk banned it, why want we banning it?

and when we got into this because they're surrounded by oceans, too, they've had their share of oil spills up on the north slope. so what is your response to it? do they know something we don't know? you did note the uk banned it? >> yes, chairman. the uk took correxit. it was due to rocky shore tests which primarily deals with whether or not the surfactant causes mussels and clams to lose adhesion ona rocky shore. they think it's useful on heavy fuel oil. they're looking at a test protocol to look at whether they

should be allowing its use offshore. we don't have a rocky shore issue here because we don't have allow this to be used anywhere near the shoreline. it's being used out, the closest it's been used is 30 miles from shore. so it is fair to say that they had concerns. but i just want to be clear to the people of the gulf it wasn't because of toxicity, if there were toxicity issues, that would be different t had to do with the shoreline impact on a rocky shore, which obviously is different here as well. >> well, i appreciate that clarification. dr. robinson, has noaa reviewed the way other countries are using dispersants and the effect on marine life and the safety of seafood. >> our scientists have scoured the literature to look at the what's known about the impacts of dispersants on those trusted

resources that we are required to protect in this region and around the country. but in spite of that, madam senator, we are just as concerned about the gaps that administrator jackson has pointed out as well as those of you here in the senate and we really welcome the opportunity that we're provided by the $2 million the president has proposed to begin, to begin a more comprehensive research program into the long-term impacts of dispersants in these and other systems. so in spite of what -- >> so do other countries ban the use of dispersants because of their concern about the impact on seafood? why don't we go to nato countries or eu countries or countries that are our allies like japan? >> well, i don't know comprehensively what all of those countries do. >> well, i'd like to know.

that's the noaa job, i would hope that you would look. did you look there? >> well, we are bound by the all producing act -- >> the all producing act won't allow to you find out what another country does that is willing to fight and die alongside of us in afghanistan. >> right. what we've done in with our colleagues around the world is to try to get a better sense of not only the regulatory framework they work in but what is the impact these types of compounds are having on these valued resources. so, yes, senator, we are quite interested in learning more about what they -- >> dr. robinson, i want you more than interested. circumstance i need noaa on the edge of their chair. i need a sense of urgency here. we're going to fund the research. we have a sense of urgency. we need you to have that urgency. >> right. >> i'd like a list from you meaning from noaa by next week

on what do nato nations and those that are part of our strategic alliance like japan so we know their value and scientific capability, what is their listing on the use of dispersants. i'd like it from the epa perspective and the noaa perspective. and i would like that by this time next week. >> we'll get that information to you, senator. >> madam chairman, thank you. just very quickly, one last question for you, dr. robinson. with the testing that noaa has done on the issue of dispersants in this seafood, have you detected anything that is noticeable or reportable in the seafood that you've been testing? >> our seafood tests are more all -- it's what is dispersed on our protocols are not specifically looking at

dispersants or the byproducts of dispersants themselves. >> are you intending to do that? >> i think that would be an excellent thing to consider because we're learned from this situation that there are other potentials here, perhaps even from accumulation of dispersants and their byproducts into seafood. so that's something we have on our list of things that we would like to know more about. >> is fda testing this? we were earlier about the fda role within three miles of our shores, are they testing for dispersants in our seafood. >> i don't think the protocols, presently call for the testing of seafood, with regard to seafood safety with regard to dispersants or byproducts, it's really the oil that we're -- and the oil biprukts that we are looking for in seafood at the moment. >> so how can we give the consumer the assurance that the seafood that is coming from the gulf in these waters is safe for

consumption? >> the evidence that we presently have is that the dispersants are broken down rather quickly and biodegrade fairly quikly, we don't know for absolute certainty that there are no traces of dispersants in seafood. our tests, however, looking at the more toxic agents in seafood focus on the oil and at oil byproducts. >> i understand. that but it seems to me we've got an issue here where we're not certain. i mean the administrator was not able to tell me with certainty whether or not we considered these dispersants as pollutants. if they get into that food chain at whatever level, are we testing for this? it sounds like at this point in time, no, we're looking for the oil products on the fish. that's one thing most certainly

but it would seem to me as we do the research on the effecti effectiveness of these dispersants and the trade-off, you have to consider the impact to our fisheries to mariculture as a whole when we're looking at this. i want to be able to give a level of assurance to people that whether you are eating wild alaska salmon from prince william sound or whether you're eating it from taking it from the gulf that the dispersants have not had an impact on the safety of that. so if we are not testing for that, i would certainly hope that we be doing that now, yesterday. that that is something again a level of assurance we need to be able to provide the consumer and give them that certainty that these dispersants, even though yes, the purpose of them is to disperse the oil quickly, if you

disperse the oil butt we've replaced it with another substance that has toxicity levels that impact that seafood, that's something that we all need to be concerned about. administrator? >> thank you, senator. i did want to follow up on your point because you're right, what we have done is we've shared the formulations of the dispersant, although they're confidential business information, the manufacturer has made sure we share that with fda and noaa as well as the state of louisiana and other states who have asked for it so they can look at their own testing. we're testing water and sediment, but one other thing we've done is look at the bioaccumulation potential of the constituents that are in the dispersants. so dispersants are -- the vast volume is actually oil, petroleum, it's actually in a petroleum base. then you have other chemicals

add in. the other chemicals, so that's why pollutant is higher but there are chemicals in there and they can pollute in high enough concentrations. they don't stick around by the looks that we've done. now those are not field studies, those are looking at bioaccumulation potential through peer reviewed modeling. the thing that sticks around is the oil. so it's why certainly one of the things i looked at in the decision making process of whether to take dispersants off the table entirely rather than use them in moderation is are they worsey is the cure worse than the disease? they are not. they are much less toxic and the constituents that are added to them are not nearly as bad as the oil. so i think not getting into seafood safety, one of the reasons i've seen noaa and fda say they want to first make sure there's no oil there is because the constituent in the dispersant that's most likely to stick around would be the same stuff that's in the crude

itself. is that fair? >> that's fair. >> i appreciate that explanation. again, i think what it's going to get down to, this is going to be critical for the economic recovery in the gulf where you've got shrimpers and oystermen and people who rely on seafood for their industry, those fish, those shrimp may be absolutely safe but as long as the public believes -- >> that's right. >> that they have been tainted that market does not come back, those shrimpers may be out there in their boats, they're on the water, collecting their shrimp and no one going to buy them. so we've got to be working together then, if in fact we've demonstrated there is clearly that level of safety, how do we market this? how do we give that level of consumer assurance? and i think this is where we're going to wsh wsh we ne-- we nee noaa and the fda and they need

to come out and unequivocally state things are safe but it's going to impact all of our s seafood markets around the country. we need to get that word out and we need you to help us make that case. >> senator, we want to work with you on this. we are a seafood dependent state. it's important to our our business people, our restaurants, people who sell seafood, people who are the wholesale dealers. this is big business and it's big business but it's small business that did is it. my whole sale seafood processing. so this doesn't have to be the first hearing because we're also the commerce department, once we have the validation of our science, we're going to talk to secretary locke. if we can promote -- if commerce

department can spend money to improve exports, we can spend money to help our brothers and sisters in the gulf and all of us who are seafood dependent for our economy to ensure that we're going to do this. let's all work together, let's have like a working group and to do this. i'm going to temporarily recess this hearing so that we can go vote. i'm going to excuse the administrative witnesses. i know you're heading to the gulf. madam administrator. before i recess i want to read a question from senator shelby. he is quite concerned about hurrica hurricanes and hurricane preparation. he's concerned that what is going on in the gulf, any reaction to the hurricane and preparation will have to address

booms, the anchors holding the booms, cleanup crews, et cetera. if oil dispersants wash ashore, what will that be in impact? i'm going to read the question, share it with you and i think in the interest of senator shelby would like that answer in writing for him, which is can you tell us the status of the emergency plan for the gulf if a hurricane hits, when do the agency plan to advise the local communities on what they need to do, they haven't heard anything. since contamination could exist in the sge waters, what agencies will be on the site, on site to make the call for the safety of residents an property owners and people in the seafood industry? you call them fishermen, we call we call them working americans. and the hurricane surge or tidal waters, we need to know what's going don to be the cleanup of water and eye. and the related damage.

so we want you to have this question in writing, i'll ask my staff to share it. senator shelby wanted so much to be here and he might be able to come back for the second half. we're going to recess this. we've got homework from you. but i want to say something about the worker bees in the gulf. having been there, i was impressed at how hard everybody was working. and how whether it was the noaa people, fish and wildlife, the epa people on the ground and so on. so i'm going to say hats off to our federal response and working with the community. but i think we, in washington, have to really pick it up and i think this unified command has got to get a little bit more juice. i really do. i am distressed about the changing admirals on the scene. okay? admiral allen has served the

nation with distinction. he's the unified command commander. but the admiral on the ground has got to be on the ground or on the water. and that's a separate topic, we'll take that up with the president. but right now, we need you. you know, you're operational in one sense, but you are the science, you are the science of the united states of america. and they're counting on you, we're counting on you. so we look forward to it. as we get ready to mark up our bill next week, that's why we need these lists, so omb can vet and this one can cogitate and science advisers can review. but through the administrator of epa and you, dr. robinson, i am asking for those lists, we don't have time for a lot of bureaucratic vetting, screwing

around, okay? we have a sense of urgency. and i know you do, too, but sometimes our own processes get in our way. and so, this committee is temporarily recessed. i'm going to go vote, come back, hopefully other members will. and at that time, we're going to take testimony from the louisiana bucket brigade and the environmental working group to get the view from the ngos. i thank you and i thank our executive branch witnesses [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the latest on efforts to cap the gulf oil spill from today's "washington journal". situation

regarding the capping of the well and theleanup in the gulf is admiral thad allen, retired u.s. coast guard, now the national incident commander of the deep water horizon oil spill response. good morning. tell us, what is the latest on the cap that has been put on the deepwater hozon oil well? guest: yesterday we exceeded a 48-hour period where we were able to shut the well and maintain some pressure. we will go for another 24 hours and assess where we are, and that will be sometime this afternoon. there is a quandary presented by the shut-in of the well. we have established pressure -- the good news, but it did not rise as high as we thought. we were looking for somewhere between 7500 and 8000 psi, which we thought would be the difference to of the top of the well from that being pushed up from the reservoir, but we are

between 6760 hundred now. the curve on the pressure is consistent with the well with the treaty, but there is a question as to why the pressure islow, and crawls around two competing theories. one is that the oil released so far released into the and from the depleted the well and drop the pressure, or that the oil is escaping somewhere below, or there is a leak th a problem in the casing. bp and our scientific team are working on this and we agree to take readings on the bottom with seismic, acoustic, and so forth, and look for the leaks while we continue to evaluate. there is some benefit to having the oil shut in and not been released into the army, but the real end will be when we do the bottom kill, intercept the well and begin to put it, as early as next week. host: tell us a bit more about the measure of the seismic activity. here in the washington, d.c.

area we had a 3.6 earthquake earlier this week. we're kind of getting up to speed on the measure of seismic activity. tell us a little more about how the technology is being used in the gulf? guest: before they begin to drill the original site the had a series of hadruns, and created at time-phased, almost four- dimensional model of what it would look like down to the reservoir. there were different types of rock formations. a very good indication of what they were drilling into. they did another run on april 26, after the event occurred. it was not quite as good because there were many problems with the pipe. but they got pretty significant indications. we have been taking the vessels that have find seismic sensors and going across-cuts a

different angles, and shooting so large-type images through the rocks and getting a return to allow us a profile of the formation. we're trying to look for anomalies where oil might have moved into the formation, or my becoming towards the surface. host: there waan advertisement in the paper this morning in "the new york times" taken out by bp. the top one says that bp is taking full responsibility for the cleanup in the gulf, and are committed to keeping you and the american public informed. how informed is bp keeping you on their activities regarding capping this well and given the situation under control? guest: we have a federal government signs team located in bp headquarters in houston, where the command center is that monitors the pictures and work on the well head. we have been integrated with them since the start of the. there are daily meetings with the suns team and bp to try to talk about the competing

theories -- between the science team and bp. i myself have daily contact with bob dudley, and we have several principles call for route the day for government leaders are briefed by the science team. that will continue through the weekend. host: what is the next briefing you have with the people from bp, and what kind of decisions we make based on that? guest: the science teams only drop the day. one team is looking at whether there is water is as do with the reservoir. if so, the order will be on top of that. that will continue to put prsure there. if there is no water, it would account for the depletion theory. we have several teams looking at individual questions. about midday the will come up with their best estimates based on data from the last 24 hours,

and about 3:00 p.m., those principles will have a conversation to decide on the next 24 hours, as we did yesterday. host: and autumn says that's a noa summer ship has been brought to assist on the monitoring of the entire seafloor around the welding are you concerned about leaks coming now that you have a cap on the initial will spring? guest: that is what i was referring to in making sure that we understand the nature of any problems. while we're keeping that well under pressure, we don't want to cause any irreversible damage or allow oil to get to the surfa. we brought in the pisces that has very fine sense in devices looking for things like methane bubbles. that is together with the seismic vessel also during this

survey i mentioned earlier. we're also using rov's, hydrophones. we're really monitoring the sea floor. st: when can you expect the operation of the relief well? guest: they are at the end of putting the well bore down. there within about four or 5 feet of the well right now, going down at a slight angle towards it, one or two degrees. by next weekend will be in a position to attempt a first entry into the well, the need to reinforce the bore they have built so far. host: give us the layout of what is on tap for the process this

week? guest: we will continue to fight the spill on the surface. while we move to the new cap which we are testing now, the was a time where oil was going to the surface. we have gotten them in modes skimmers, and are trying get it from the beaches or skim it before it gets there. so, the oil recovery will continue even though there is no oil coming from the well at this point. so, what we're trying to cap it, our attention is also on >> we have a special page with

all of our coverage about the gulf of mexico oil spill. nearly two dozen congressional hearings from washington, d.c. to hearings in louisiana, plus links to related pages and access to live bp video from of a mile beneath the surface of the gulf of mexico. we set up a twitter section for comments. you will find it at c- span.org/oilspill. you can see continuing coverage of the oil spill cleanup on c- span networks. kenneth feinberg oversees the $20 billion fund created by bp to handle claims related to the gulf of oil spill. monday, he speaks at the economic club of washington. our live coverage begins at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. for a snapshot of washington and the congress, the c-span

congressional directory, a reference guide to every member of the house and senate, supreme court justices and state governors -- all at your fingertips. order online and c- span.org/store. >> the chairmen and ranking members of the senate foreign relations committee wednesday express concerns about the administration's afghanistan strategy. those comments came during a hearing with the special representative richard holbrooke. this is two hours and 20 minutes. order. let me say at the outset of the hearing that the rules of the committee are crystal clear with respect to any kind of demonstrations of any thought whatsoever. this committee prides itself in listening carefully and in probing and having a thoughtful

dialogue even about the most emotional and contentious issues, and we ask every member of the public to respect that, and the rights of the senators and the committee to be able to conduct their business. i want to thank everyone for coming this afternoon, and i want to extend a very special thank you and welcome to ambassador holbrooke who has taken time from an exceedingly busy schedule in order to appear again before the committee. we look forward to hearing your insights ambassador holbrooke and i thank you for doing this. i might mention that ambassador holbrooke is a little inscribed in the amount of time he can be with us simply because he has to leave from here in order to go to islamabad and kabul and

secretary clinton will be following i think in a few days, so a lot is happening and it is timely for us to be able to meet here today and have this discussion. i also want to say very clearly that i think ambassador holbrooke has assembled an outstanding team, a group of people, many of whom i know personally and him i think bring an enormous amount of experience and intellectual ability to this challenge, and i congratulate him and the secretary for that and i want to also say that i think he has been doing an outstanding job under exceedingly difficult circumstances. i think all of us know that for seven or eight years, the war in afghanistan proceeded as if there was no really clear

definition of the mission or the strategy. i think it is in the last year or so that we have begun to try to pull that together but it has obviously been complicated by the events that intervened over the course of those seven or eight years. this is the foreign relations committee's 11th hearing on afghanistan in the past year and a half, and the number reflects both our commitment and our concern about understanding the challenges of this part of the world, afghanistan, pakistan, south asia and their recognition of the critical role that this conflict plays in our own national security. i have said that the committee will continue over the course of these next months to continue a series of hearings on this topic, and i think it is a reflection of the importance of what is happening there, the importance of the region. adult so is a reflection of an

unfortunate fact. last month, afghanistan surpassed vietnam, a place that both ambassador holbrooke and i are all too familiar with, as the longest military campaign in american history. more than a thousand men and women have lost their lives in afghanistan, nearly 6000 of them have been egregiously injured, and we owe a duty to every single one of them and to their families and to the tens of thousands of other military and civilian personnel in afghanistan from our country and our partners from other countries. we owe them all the exercise of our oversight role in order to seriously and responsibly present them with the best strategy possible. it would be a avoidance if we didn't say that this is a difficult moment in the afghan conflict. our progress is decidedly

nick's, particularly in the south where the taliban are the strongest. the taliban are currently assassinating government officials and tribal leaders, embarked on a campaign of intimidating afghans, who want to support coalition efforts. regrettably, corruption in some corridors appears to grow. one in three afghan households reports having to pay a bribe to obtain public services, and our civilian aid efforts to bring stability and consolidate military gains are off to a slow start in south and in the east. many people have asked the question whether or not we have the right strategy, so this is a good time to be asking hard questions about the progress that we are making toward our object is in defeating al qaeda and bringing a measure of stability to afghanistan. it is also time to demand accountability from our partners on the battlefield and in the

corridors of government from washington to brussels, from kabul to kandahar. it is also time to assess how are strategy fits the realities on the ground. over the past year, some of those realities have changed, and i might say a few for the better. i happen to believe that the conditions which i have set out last october for deploying more troops still hold today, and i am concerned as to whether or not those kinds of conditions are being adequately met. first, the insistence on the presence of reliable afghan troops to partner with our military as we decide to proactively clear an area. second, when we engage in holding those areas, i believe it is critical to secure capable local leaders with whom we can

partner in order to provide effective governance. governance remains one of the great challenges is not the great challenge. finally, the build and transfer components our mission really require that area to shift to afghan control and in order to do that, the civilian side must be prepared to move quickly with well implemented support structure underneath a the clear and hold efforts. when those conditions are met, it is hard to imagine that you are not going to have a better outcome. today's hearing is intended to take a tough look at the civilian strategy to see if we are on the right path. the administration requested $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2010 to support civilian efforts in afghanistan and another $3.9 billion for the next fiscal year. needless to say, we need to make sure this money is spent as well

as possible. in recent weeks the committee staff conducted 16 briefings with the state department and usaid in order to examine how we are spending the taxpayers money. dollar by dollar, sector by sector, in afghanistan and pakistan. it is our intention needless to say to continue to keep a close eye on how that money is being spent to promote stability in the region. i might add that the committee will shortly be releasing a report. i have informed ambassador holbrooke about this, a report on this topic of corruption and hopefully it is a report which will set out some recommendations for how we might be able to better respond to some of these issues. in the end, all of the billions of dollars and all of the united states's best efforts, all of

the sacrifices for our troops, are all going to be irrelevant if the united states and their partners do not have the right strategy to establish an effective afghan governance and ultimately effective afghan takeover of responsibility. the problem is that the key element of this strategy is the one over which we have the least control, and that is the willingness and ability of the afghans to assume ownership of the effort. for nearly nine years, most afghans have seen themselves as bystanders in a conflict between the west and al qaeda, and a conflict being fought in their homeland. in recent months, we launched a concerted effort to convince afghans that this is their fight it is not an easy task given the historic distrust of foreigners on afghan soil, but it is a vital one. ultimately we need to better understand exactly what the definition of success is in

afghanistan and what to an acceptable looks like they are, and how achievable it is. many have said repeatedly, i think ambassador holbrooke among them, myself, others that there is no military solution in afghanistan. having said that, we absolutely need to understand what the political solution looks like and how we get there. those are the most relevant questions that we want to examine in the course of the hearing today. senator lugar. >> mr. chairman, i join you in welcoming ambassador holbrooke back to the committee. this hearing provides an opportunity to review our progress and refine our understanding of u.s. policy in afghanistan. there is substantial concern about our course in afghanistan, in part because of the recent disruption in our military

leadership, but also because gains in governance, development, military training, and other areas have not occurred at a pace that loose confidence in president obama's original timetable. some security improvements have been achieved and more are likely to follow, but they have been hard-won. and in six months, the president expects a review by his commanders on the status of our efforts in afghanistan. this review presumably would determine the shape of an unexpected transition of responsibilities to afghan security forces in july of 2011. but absent a major realignment on the ground, it is unrealistic to expect that a significant downsizing of u.s. forces could occur at that time without security consequence.

this conclusion is reinforced by recent gao and inspector general reports that have raised deep concerns over the viability and the quality of training for the afghan national army and police. the lack of clarity in afghanistan does not end with the president's timetable. both civilian and military operations in afghanistan are proceeding without a clear definition of success. there has been much discussion of our counterinsurgency strategy and methods, but very little explanation of what metrics must be achieved before the country is considered secure. at some moments, it appears as if we are trying to remake the economic, political and security culture of afghanistan. we should know by now that such grand ambitions are beyond our resources and powers.

at other moments, it appears we are content with a narrow, security driven definition of success, namely preventing an implacably hostile taliban regime from taking over the government and preventing afghanistan from becoming a terrorist safe haven regardless of what government is in power. but even at this narrow definition of success were embraced by the obama administration, it would require amplification. how much taliban military capability and territorial control is tolerable? what are we currently doing in afghanistan that is not required to achieve this narrow objective? what are reasonable mileposts were judging progress towards success? what time constraints do we perceive, given resource and alliance pressures? how do dynamics in pakistan factor in to our strategy in

afghanistan? i recognize that the situation in afghanistan is fluid and not easily defined, and i also understand why and it in this ration would not want to be pinned down to a specific definition of success. the problem is that we are expanding-- expending enormous resources in afghanistan. our resources are finite, and they must be focused effectively. we need to know if some omissions that currently are receiving resources are not intrinsic to our objectives. we also need to know what missions are absolutely indispensable to success, however it is the fine. we can't can fall back on measuring our military and civilian activities in afghanistan according to relative progress. arguably, we could make progress for decades on security, employment, good governance,

women's rights and other goals, expending billions of dollars each year without ever reaching a satisfying conclusion. and its ups shuster shift in stance is avoiding mission creep toward unattainable he-- towards unattainable goals is essential. given this situation, it is reasonable to consider the enlistment of local security operations under the authority of the ministry of interior or defense. this tactic has been frequently debated. it may not be applicable in all cases but since its arrival, general petraeus has tried to explore it. this decision is a difficult one given afghanistan's history of conflict under warlords. as such local militias are best integrated within a longer longer-term institutionalization plan for such forces. president karzai presented a draft afghan peace and reintegration program to nato

for consideration. the issues of reconciliation and reintegration are now in broad discussion. the committee would welcome remarks on the status of the draft program and its elements, as well as the position of our government toward its. who is participating and leading the coordination of such discussions with the afghan government and groups seeking reconciliation? i am hopeful that the administration will not wait six months to refine its explanation of our goals in afghanistan. it is up to the president to define success and delineate how much time and how many resources should be devoted to achieving it. i appreciate ambassador holbrooke's your willingness to join with us today and your faithfulness in your testimony year after year and i very much look forward to our discussion. thank you mr. chairman.

>> thank you very much senator lugar. mr. ambassador, thank you for your patience and we look forward to your-- we have put the full text in the record as if read in full. >> thank you mr. chairman. it is a great honor to be back before this committee, 34th year i've testified before this committee and there is no committee that plays a more important role in the national security interest of our country and i especially want to thank you and senator lugar for your historic leadership in the last year and a half in regards to at least two issues, your personal role in regard to the afghan elections and the leadership you and senator lugar provided in what is now known as the kerry-lugar berman legislation for pakistan, which is had an enormous effect and which i will refer to again in the future. as you said senator, i will be leaving for islamabad directly

from this hearing for andrews air force base, stopping in germany to refuel and going onto on to afghanistan with secretary clinton. and i want to be as brief as i can. first of all, mr. chairman, you began by saying we need to demand accountability of our partners, and i think the partners include our partnership, and i welcomed the chance to speak again before this distinguished group on our role in this effort. i want to just begin with the most critical point, and if you will may i submit my formal statement? >> without objection it will be placed in the record as this read in full. >> 18 months ago we inherited a situation which afghanistan and pakistan were treated as separate issues and there was no single approach to it, hence the unattractive aronym afpak which

we do not use in public but which was designed to stress the fact that these issues are closely related. i will return to that name repeatedly as we go forward but i would just note that once president obama and secretary clinton gave me this job, 35 other nations appointed counterparties, the u.s. government reorganize plus the fact that you cannot succeed in afghanistan without pakistan's involvement, and that mr. chairman is the underlying strategic rentable by which we approach the issues we are discussing today. in afghanistan, since i last testified before you, there has been considerable activity in many areas all in which you know about, the increase in american troops, the implementation of the counterinsurgency strategy under general mcchrystal and now general petraeus. we have worked very closely to do the civilian support for that plan, but i need to stress, as

all of us in this room no, that security is the essential prerequisite for every thing else. in regard to the elections last year, you all know what happened but the point i want to underscore is for the first 10 months of the administration, from january 21 of last year to november 19, the elections hung over us like a dark cloud, often reaching critical mass, never more intense than when senator kerry himself was in kabul playing such an instrumental role in the resolution of that near disaster, which in the end produced a legitimate governments but in a very messy way. at that time, we were finally able to look forward to implementation of the strategies we are here to discuss today, and first and foremost among those was the implementation of a change in agriculture, a change in counternarcotics,

change in rule of law, and changes in our attitudes about funding contractural efforts. in this regard mr. chairman, with your prior permission, i brought members of six of the 10 agencies which work with me and which you referred to with me today, and very briefly with your permission, i would just like to introduce them, not simply because of who they are but the coast they represent a unique interagency effort and if they could just quickly stand as they read their names, starting on my left was my chief of staff from the state department rosemary pauli. next to her, you all know congressional affairs for richard burr my and next to him my deputy dan feldman who used to work for your committee. next to dan, romney shah from the treasury department. next to him matt stiglitz from the justice department. next to him shannon darcy from aig. next to shannon, quentin gray from the u.s. department of

agriculture. next to quentin, raul artiste who just joined us from the department of homeland security and next to him, chemical or on her last day is the state department staff where she is going onto council of foreign relations fellowship. the six agencies not hear our cia, joint chiefs of staff, fbi and the office of the secretary of defense. no office of the department's history is have this interagency and this is designed-- i brought them here today mr. chairman to illustrate to you that as distinctly as possible that we have a whole of government approach here and there is very good civilian military coordination. on the second row, our afghan political expert and a former member of the united nations team. tim linda king our new pakistan country director and our new afghan country director. so, with that team behind this mr. chairman, we have embarked

on full implementation and close coordination with centcom and isaf and the american embassy in kabul of the efforts that you want to discuss today. i would like to take a quick look forward if i might do what is coming up. on july 20, secretary clinton will leave the american delegation to the kabul conference. this will be a conference that involves secretary-general of the united nations ban ki-moon, nato secretary-general russ munson and somewhere between 35 and 55 foreign ministers, number still to be determined. will be the largest gathering of foreign leaders in afghanistan since the 1970s. she is going because she wants to demonstrate our support for the commitment, our support for the government's effort, our support for an integrated civilian military effort that combines our business as well as the government. both you and senator lugar correctly made the point that in

the end it is the afghan government that must succeed. we can only help them. anyone who shared the experience that you and i and senator webb and other shared in another war in another century know full well what the consequences are if we americanize the war. we cannot afford to repeat the mistake which at least three people today lived through personally. and we carry forward those memories, not to be imprisoned by them but to learn from the tactical issues that did place, but i want to underscore the fundamental difference between those two wars as you mentioned mr. chairman. in this war or national security is at stake. our homeland security is threatened and afghanistan, that is true and it affects their policy towards pakistan. now, the biggest change in policy, which could not be implemented until the political situation was being-- mind this was the reintegration program that president karzai announced

in london signed the implementing decree on two weeks ago and will unveil fully in kabul next week. that is the program that was missing from the afghan equation, a program designed to bring taliban fighters in voluntary. as you said mr. chairman there is no military solution here, so as general petraeus in general mcchrystal said you are not going to win this war by killing every member of the taliban. it just doesn't work that way in this kind of war. so, the goal here is to create a new program. it was a massive gap in the food chain of our efforts. led by the japanese and the british almost $200 billion has been assembled for this fund. the united states or its part with the support of congress, has assigned $100 million of cerp funds for this effort under general petraeus' personal

control and those of you who have talked to general petraeus now that he matches the highest importance to this issue. mr. chairman you mentioned your corruption report and we have as you said, talked about it. we share your concerns. we share the concern of chairwoman lowly and the other body, and we will read your report with great intention. we have prepared at some later date with your convenience to give you a detailed briefing of what we have done in the last 18 months and several of the people sitting behind me have an instrumental in that. i just want to say that we inherited a program and we now have a very large number of people from treasury, fbi, cia, dia and state working on corruption. still mr. chairman isn't enough, and we well understand that. president karzai has committed himself publicly and privately to upgrading his anticorruption

office and this will be a major topic of conversation during the kabul conference, and we will read your report with great interest. finally mr. president i want-- mr. chairman i want to return to the issue of pakistan and afghanistan. i said at the outset that we cannot succeed in afghanistan without pakistan's participation let me go a little further. when we came into office early last year we sat at-- said as an in implementing goal for strategic objective which is to defeat al qaeda and protect our homeland we set several subordinate goals. one of the most important is to bring afghanistan and pakistan closer together. since the day pakistan became independent in 1947, there has been a substantial problem between the two countries, most radically illustrated by the fact of the day after pakistan

became independent afghanistan opposed their entry into the united nations a story which every pakistani school child is taught in school. the border is still disputed and the overlay of recent events has made it even more serious. in the last 15 to 20 years, there has been no serious dialogue between these two neighbors which are intertwined, and the history of it with charlie wilson's warrior you are all familiar with. we set out the goal of improving that relationship, and in recent months, there has been the first narrowing of the distance between kabul and islamabad. there have been visits in both directions by both leaders. those are continuing. general petraeus has been involved in those. secretary clinton and myself in the present of the unit-- united states using cursor. i do not want a leader committee or anyone who is listening to this hearing with the impression that any agreements have been reached. they have not. i do not want to leave anyone in on this committee with the

impression that some of the news reports recently fevered accounts of secret deals between elements of pakistan and elements and the taliban. we have no evidence whatsoever of the accuracy of those reports, but there is movement. and that movement below the radar screen has been massively supported by the kerry-lugar berman legislation. i cannot think of this committee enough, and i mean this sincerely, for what you did last year. it was difficult and the initial reaction in pakistan was not shall i say, pleasant because there was a serious misunderstanding. your personal intervention mr. chairman ameliorated the problem. we believe it is more or less gone. the money is beginning to flow. the implementing operating plans have been filed. some of the money is going forward. secretary clinton and i will be making further announcements about this, but the effect of

the legislation is unmistakable and it has encouraged an improvement in u.s. pakistan relations. a better dialogue between kabul and islamabad and some sense that we are also simultaneously with the war effort looking for other ways to move responses for it. mr. chairman. >> thank you ambassador holbrooke. i think we will go with senators we want to give everyone a chance to get their questions in. share with us if you would what ucs you see as the major impediments to a more rapid sense of progress in the governance issues, the local governance issues as well as the top down kabul to the local districts components, and particularly looking at

something like the marjah offensive and the lessons we might learn from that, what can you share with us that marks a sign of progress there and/or what are the hurdles that you are struggling through that you see the potential of resolving with respect to that? >> the impediments mr. chairman of our extraordinary. the sheer capacity of the government and its personnel. >> in the absence of capacity. >> exactly. the sheer capacity problem. to get qualified after-- after just 30 years of war. a relative handful of people from the diaspora have returned to help their country, but there is so much talent in countries like the united states and others, of afghan americans who are living here.

i would love it if more of them would help their government, but to go back. >> why are they not? >> some did, but it is a very difficult problem. it is very dangerous. they are frustrated by the government structure, corruption has been an impediment. and they are giving up the wonderful life here. we have talked to them. some as you know have gone back. human resources is the most important variable. you know, ostroff johnny has said to us and i'm sure to you that if he had 6000 well-trained people you could change it. secondly, the immense poverty of the country, the poorest non-african country in the world. the corruption it issue, the history of the country, the literacy rate. you take the police for example. for seven years, for reasons i cannot understand, the united states were dissipated in

training afghan police at vast expense without giving them litter sea training. we were turning out police with 88% illiteracy and it went right by everyone. i wrote about it as a private citizen as nsa was given this job. we went at it and with the support of my then counterpart general petraeus we made literacy training a mandatory part of the effort but how could that have been allowed to happen? how can you have a policeman who can read an i.d. card? you mentioned marjah. marjah is uniquely difficult because as those of you have been there no, while it has a long legacy of interaction with the u.s., it was the area where the kennedy and johnson and eisenhower kennedy johnson and nixon administrations really put in the effort and the people down there remember america very fondly. it has also been ground zero for the taliban and it is a very difficult area to operate them. with the taliban has done

mr. chairman is targeted assassinations. it is a very tough problem. so, the effort is multiple. now what are we doing about it? we have sent-- we have more than tripled the american civilian presence and we are always mindful of the issue we discussed earlier of avoiding the dependency trap. we have particularly increased come increased in fact by 600 fold our field presence. when i was in march marjah two weeks ago, i saw the best civilian military indirection i have ever seen in my experiences in wars like this than i have seen more than my share. they really were worked in together seamlessly under hellish conditions. the tribal leaders i met with said, we are glad you are back, referring all the way back to the kennedy johnson era but, we need agriculture, we need seeds, we need security and we risked our lives to come meet with you

today. in fact, as if to underline the point, while we were meeting at the tribal shura, two suicide bombers detonated themselves in the marketplace so it at apparently been waiting for delegation but when we didn't go to the marketplace because we didn't have enough time, they went ahead and did their thing anyway, so the point i want to underscore mr. chairman is how difficult it is in a place like marjah. that doesn't mean it is impossible but it will take time and it will take resources. >> let me ask you this. if marjah was difficult as kandahar going to be any easier? >> yes, i think it will. i think marjah was really, really extraordinary and you have been there. you know that it is so remote and isolated and get it is viewed as critical and strategic terms. >> i worry about the kandahar operation. prior to american troops announcing they were going to go

in, there were not assassinations, there was not a level of violence. damir announcement has now brought on the process of assassination and intimidation, and i doubt that we are going to have a sufficient level of troops to be able to "pacify the city last code i am unsure of the strategy to be honest with you and i am wondering if you can help us understand exact ware we are heading in that regard? >> mr. chairman first let me be clear. marjah is not fallujah. marjah is not going to be a battle for the city. >> that is. >> excuse me, kandahar will not be a battle for the city like fallujah and you yourself dismayed that point and i want to underscore it. secondly, general petraeus is currently doing his own strategic review. i would be premature not having talked to him about this issue in a couple of weeks and i am about to see him to give you a

more detailed statement, but your perception is one that i am fully aware of and they think is basically, has great merit. >> well, mr. ambassador as they finish up my time here i would just tell you that if as you and i believe and i think-- i know you do believe this, pakistan is central to the resolution and if as we all know there isn't a military solution that you need a political one, it seems to me that the greatest pressure comes maybe, possibly with kandahar but certainly not in the absence of pressure on the western part of pakistan, which we are struggling with the pakistanis to get to a sufficient level. if that doesn't meet with some kind of barrier or some sort of military presence, which i think his been withdrawn from the area to some degree on the other side of the border, the media part of

the border, i think it's sort of undermines what we are trying to get the pakistanis to do. i am not sure you can do both. maybe general petraeus has a view of how that can happen, but it seems to me that that review is perhaps-- that it is appropriate. >> lets let's see what he comes up with mr. chairman. for our part, our focus on pakistan is based on the facts that we recognize, and this is not been recognized in the past, that pakistan has legitimate security interests in its neighbor with an undefined border and those have to be taken into account, but at the same time nobody is saying that pakistan has the right to determine what happens next door. it is simply that we hope they can get along and we have been encouraging that. and we believe that recent

dialogue between islamabad and kabul has been beneficial. as for the situation on the border, general mcchrystal and now general petraeus have repeatedly traveled to islamabad. general petraeus made his first trip in his new job to islamabad just a few days ago. the coordination between ghq in pakistan and isaf headquarters in kabul, virtually nonexistent a year ago is now well advanced. is t as far as fans as it should be? no sir but it is moving in that direction and ethanol mullen will be traveling to the region to move that forward as i will be when i visit in a few days. >> mr. ambassador, i want to just congratulate you on the efforts you have made, which have really been unprecedented. i don't think i can recall any time in any war, certainly not in iraq or otherwise, where the kind of coordinated effort that took place to bring civilian and

military leaders here to washington and to meet in the kind of concerted way that we did, that several day meeting i think was exceedingly helpful. the key now is obviously translating it to their follow-through and execution over there, but it certainly laid some important groundwork and i also want to say to you that i think you are really onto something. the complications of india, pakistan and afghanistan we all know very well. it is very very difficult with years and years of history, suspicion, conflict, paranoia, but if that can somehow be managed, that may be by far the most effective way to resolve this conflict and i think you know that and i think you are pursuing it but that is perhaps the avenue of greatest potentiay resolution and i really wish you well with that is i think it is

critical to the outcome. >> thank you. >> senator lugar. >> ambassador holbrooke, at the risk of oversimplifying the history of the situation, we had to embassies in africa attacks by apparently al qaeda cells, and this is a severe shock, but afghanistan was different, because essentially it is apparent al qaeda had training camps. they were protected by the taliban and some of those camps came attack upon new york city and washington d.c.. we went to war because the taliban refused to cough up the al qaeda camp, and that began the war that we are discussing today. now, let me just say that essentially many americans, reading about al qaeda

currently, would say that a good number of al qaeda probably reside in pakistan and therefore, they would accept the fact that the two countries have to be considered together, but even beyond that, "the new york times" had a sunday story in a magazine about yemen. the suggestion was that all things considered that might be the place al qaeda camps can situate in the future because of all the complex and the difficulties and the remoteness and so forth. others have suggested somalia from time to time, because the lack of governance held together perhaps by intruding forces from around the neighboring states and the point that i am making is that we started in afghanistan because we thought that is where al qaeda was, and we wanted to disrupt any further activity that might threaten us in the united states of america.

now 10 years later as we have all pointed out, we are still there, and my point is raised in this question about some metricd this in part. perhaps one answer is that president karzai, a central government is formed, there there is reasonable ability in maintaining law and order within the country, and repelling outside forces. at least that would be possible, and meanwhile we are doing a great number of good things with regard to agriculture, the economy and so forth. but as you pointed out, it is not quite that simple because president karzai will continually be under pressure from those in pakistan who would say that after all, afghanistan is a legitimate security interests of ours, not since because it is a neighbor but some pakistani leaders would say because it is a way of fending

off i-india. india is the enemy, not afghanistan. for the more taliban from pakistan come over into afghanistan interchangeably. right now president karzai is dealing hopefully with some types of taliban but they are trying to define who those are as opposed to the other source of taliban and even if we have success in kandahar, once again it is hard to tell what success may be. if people come back into kandahar who do not wish the united states well and maybe even afghanistan well. i am sort of coming to a conclusion here that our idea of attacking the original al qaeda people by trying to reform or reshape afghanistan may not have been finally where we should have started or ended and how do we end and sort of move on?

i raise this because at the beginning of the obama administration he called some of us around the table and that was the day he discuss discussed the withdrawal from iraq. there were some persons to remain nameless around the table who said mr. president get a sharper pencil. july 1 of this year is too long. of the president hung on and we are in fact withdrawing, but right now we don't have a government in iraq to look at. the more-- the parliament only met once. it is tough to do and it will be in afghanistan. i just think we really have to begin sharpening our pencils. what our objectives are physically because the wealth of this country is not interminable, nor are the casualties of our forces and the number of people we have available. and, the thought that somehow it meanders on without there being

some definition of metrics i think is unacceptable. so i am hopeful as you have this conference and secretary clinton and others participate, as you bring us to some thought of conclusion. of what is going to be acceptable while at the same time we get begin to worry about yemen, somalia and all sorts of other places or different strategy of dealing with al qaeda cells as opposed to tens of thousands of forces marching and occupying and trying to revamp. and i hope you can sharpen the focus of little bit as to what might come out of this meeting now. it may be premature. maybe the six months business in december is the time but i would just say in order to have continuing strong support of the congress and the american people as a better sense of success in definition is going to be required. >> senator, first of all, i know

part of your-- no part of your analysis i would take issue with. quickly, the kabul conference. the kabul conference is going to have several focuses. the one i want to draw our attention to is the reintegration program, which has finally been announced and which is now, the money has been assembled, a good chunk of money and we all agree there is no final military solution to this war. there has to be a a way to get taliban fighters off the battlefield and this is the route. secondly, you mentioned the december review process. that is a review process and the president will look at how the policy is done and make his own judgment. it would be inappropriate for me to foreshadow him but we are thinking not to wait until

december. as a matter of fact only this week and last week i sat down with my colleagues at the national security council staff and we talked about how to do this, and we will be continuing that discussion in kabul next week with secretary clinton and myself in general petraeus and ambassador eikenberry. and in addition, we are going to have another one of our civilian military exercises in kabul in the fall, one that david petraeus hyundai plant before he took his current assignment. the second concerns the fact that our commitment, our combat commitment is not open-ended, a point you made, which we all agree with. there is has been a lot of dispute about what july 2011 means and you mentioned in an your opening statement. you raise some questions about it. so with your permission mr. chairman i would like to address that absolutely critical issue. what the president said was

clear. he was going to send additional troops to afghanistan and then in july of next year he would begin careful withdrawal in accordance with the situation but withdrawals would begin. this size, scope, timing, pace and an endpoint for combat troop presence has not decided on, nor would it be appropriate to decide on it when troops are still arriving in the country and when issues like the situations that chairman kerry just mentioned in marjah and kandahar are still in a very intense days. but we are looking at the continually. secondly and most importantly from my point of view, since this team behind me and myself have been charged not with the military operations but with the civilian support of those military operations, it has been stated flatly by the president

and the secretary of state and others of us that there will be a continued economic and development assistance congress permitting, and continued support for training of the army and police, congress permitting, beyond the combat troop presence. senator levin into your other committee has made very clear how much importance he attaches to it as have u.n. chairman kerry and others. i cannot stress how important this is, because afghanistan cannot go forward unless the international community led by the greatest nation, the united states, continues to fulfill its commitments in the area beyond combat troops. now it is obviously much cheaper and it is obviously something that can only occur as the police and army are trained and able to stand on their own feet.

and, as for economic and development assistance, that is essential. what happened in 1989 when the soviets led by the united states turned its back on afghanistan and watched the liberation of eastern europe, never recognizing that the fall of communism had begun in afghanistan, never recognizing we had a commitment is a lesson of history we cannot afford to repeat and it was a direct line from the 1989 decisions to 9/11. and we all know the history here. so i want to stress what 9/11, what july 2011 is and is not senator, and the importance of continuing it, and in terms of your staying should-- saying sharper in our pencils, i will take this pencil with me and it is very sharp and we will continue to drill down as both you and chairman kerry have said.

we are fully committed to this effort. >> i would like to welcome ambassador holberg. it is really great to see you and i want to thank chairman kerry for calling this hearing today. it reminds us that our engagement with afghanistan candidate must extend beyond military operations and i would like to add, given the questions raised about whether further changes are needed in our leadership team in afghanistan i think all of us should think carefully before calling for the replacement of those providing candid insets. adding more troops will only increase instability. and i think the time has come for the president to set a flexible timetable for responsibly drawing down our troops so that we can focus on pursuing a sustainable global strategy to combat al qaeda. talking about the countries of somalia and yemen here for almost 10 years on this committee and yet somehow we get

focused on in afghanistan. we get focused on in iraq and we have never seriously addressed these other places despite repeated warnings that have been available ever sense 9/11. ambassador holberg, i am pleased president obama did at least set the start date for the redeployment of the troops although i think the start it alone is insufficient. people in wisconsin agree and a new cbs news poll found 54% of respondents say the united states should set a timetable for withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan. secretary clinton has suggested it will take three to five years to transition control of the afghan security forces. i think that timeframe is too long but i would ask you to come in again. i know you are saying a little bit in response to senator lugar but when it be helpful for the president to lay out a flexible timetable for maintaining troops in afghanistan, director is not only the concerns among the american people the concerns

among the afghan population that they should not be an open-ended occupation. >> first of all senator feingold, is a pleasure to see you again, and i am not entirely surprised at your question. it is one you and i have discussed before and in other forums. i have to respectfully say that i am very leery of setting a date certain made here for the absolute withdrawal of our support to the afghan police and army. >> i said a flexible timetable. >> but then you talk-- okay, so i want to be clear then so you and i are on the same wavelength because it is very important. when you say a flexible

timetable, you want to set a notional end date but you are willing to re-examine it? >> actually i would rather not set a day. that is not my job. i am asking the present administration to give us a vision with some time guidelines about when they think the troops can come out of afghanistan. >> you are talking about combat troops? >> yes. >> that is above my pay grade. it that we are talking about the other parts of our presence there. but, i think we have to start by understanding several things about this extraordinarily difficult country that fate and destiny have places in. it is not where you choose to fight to defend the american homeland. it is the most remote logistical place the united states is ever fought in its history, it landlocked country which is very difficult to resupply in under these extraordinary conditions.

but, given that fact and given a direct correlation between afghanistan and our homeland security, and they should be more precise, afghanistan pakistan and their homeland security, i am very leery about setting an end date at this point, but i must leave that to the president after he has done a review. i do not have any problem with july 2011 in reference to the earlier colloquy i had with senator lugar. the idea here was quite clear, to tell the world and the afghans that we do not have an open-ended limitless vietnam type escalation. when i got to vietnam we had 10,000 troops and when i left we had 500,000. at least two members of your committee where they are under much more dangerous circumstances, and we cannot repeat that and president obama was very conscious of that. at the same time i stress again

why this isn't vietnam. this is about our national security. vietnam was not. and if our national security requires us to continue to fighe organizations like the ttp in western pakistan, training people like the times square bomber, luckily training him quite badly and declaring that they wish to target the united states in addition to al qaeda targeting, we cannot be oblivious to that. both you and senator lugar mentioned somalia and yemen. it is not correct, this is not my area but i follow it and it is not quite correct to say that the u.s. is ignoring it or has no plans in it. ..

envisioned? of the rollout has not yet reached the provinces. that is the next phase. we we have put $100,000, $100 mil'' approval. conagra's approval of funds at the disposal of general petraeus and isaf to do this through isaf, but the main route for doing

this, what you and i call reintegration, is through the afghan government and the trust funds which the bredesen that the japanese have led to which the u.s. did not contribute. the jack japanese took the lead. it is hour and absolute goal to press the afghan government to fulfil its already stated commitment to put to reintegration officials in every one of the contested districts in the country immediately and to support them with logistics and make this plan work because every day under the in pressure that isaf put on the taliban there are people contacting local authorities and saying we want to get out of this war. we want to have land, we want a job, we don't have any ideological commitment to the taliban and up until now there was no way they could do it and it's only now with this program,

and the program has just been unveiled, so this, again to me this is the most important new development and this is one of the main things secretary clinton will focus on on her trip. >> thank you. >> senter corker. >> thank you. i want to thank the ambassador for coming. i know he has a wealth of knowledge and serve our country for many years. and number of us wrote a letter asking for this hearing and my guess is you might have had hearings anyway. but the reason we voted the bipartisan letter was to provide congress and the american people with a definition of the end state for the civilian operations in afghanistan clear objectives for the civilian mission in a detailed plan for achieving those objectives and the very specific measurable metrics being used to measure progress towards achieving those objectives i have to say i've been here for one hour and ten

minutes and i have heard nothing about that and while i respect the ambassador i heard a lot about process, i've heard a lot about meetings. i have no earthly idea, no earthly idea what our objectives are on the civilian front and i don't know if you have time to begin doing that right now, but this is so far been an incredible waste of time from the standpoint of hearings. i have tremendous respect for you but maybe i have the wrong witness. i hope we will have secretary clinton and eikenberry, maybe crocker, i know he's supposed to come, but can you answer the question that was the purpose of these hearings in the first place? >> i'm sorry, you don't feel that i've told you -- >> you told me the process. i would like to know the definition with the industry is and for the operations when we set this hearing that is afghanistan clear objectives for the detailed plan for achieving

those i would like to hear you talk about that. i'm glad you have to look in your agency folks but i'm not hearing anything that talks about where we are going. i would also like to know how the withdrawal date that has been set of facts that and how it affects those we are working within the country. >> thankfirst of all, senator c, i have discussed the civilian programs in very considerable detail in the constraints of time, but we did prepare a report for this committee entered into the record and i will be happy to enter into the record again a few wish, and you can go through every one of the programs. the reason i brought my colleagues with me was to show this was a whole of government unprecedented effort. now on the specifics, since you on the specifics, afghanistan is an agricultural country, in the export of agricultural products

until 1978 in the soviet invasion. this was not being done for the first seven years of this war. your committee has given a great deal of money for agriculture and we are spending it wisely in a joint a.i.d. usda effort senator lugar has been involved in, food seeds, cash for work programs, alternatives to opium production. secondly rule of law. we are spending -- we are spending the money used authorized to create justice system which can cut into the taliban propaganda by its corruption and lack of a justice system. third come counternarcotics. we ended the poppy eradication, radical change because all we were doing by eradicating the poppy seed