>> if the administration has already assured democratic leaders that the president won't be calling for cuts to social security, will there be any specifics on curbing social security or cutting entitlements? >> i was going to print out the slide that said the president's state of the union is at 9:00 p.m. on tuesday. i likely should have done that. i know there's a lot of conjecture back and forth. i'm going to wait until the speech. and with that, i'm sure nobody has their hand raised because [laughter] -- that sort of sucked the air out of the room, didn't it? [laughter] >> robert, when will the president take a position on the deficit commission's report? >> well, look, i think you'll hear -- again, as i just said to erica, i think you'll hear the president talk about a whole host of economic things including getting our fiscal house in order. and as you know, jeff, the

president's budget will be released in fairly short order as well. >> you'll notice i didn't ask that about the state of the union, but -- >> i think -- my hunch is that you took the clause, "will the president, in the state of the union" >> let's take that whole piece out of it. at some point, will he not take a position on which particular areas from those proposals he will support and which areas he would like to see implemented? >> jeff, i think, again, this is a president who, in last year's budget, instituted some tough measures in terms of our non- defense -- or non-security discretionary spending. you've seen proposals already this year to freeze civilian pay for government employees. and the president, again, will spend some time, not just tomorrow night and not just at the introduction of the budget, but throughout the year, talking about what we have to do, again, to make progress on our spending. >> i think you said last year

from the podium that deficit reduction would be one of the main priorities of the white house this year. is that still true? >> again, i think that the steps that we need to take to get our fiscal house in order will be something you'll hear a lot of discussion on this year, yes. >> let me ask one non-deficit question. does the white house have any reaction to president sarkozy's proposals on g20 today -- specifically regarding commodities? >> i know that we talked a little bit about this this morning, the speech that had been given, and i think nec was taking a look at that. but i have not heard anything back on that. jake. >> if the president, as --

senior administration officials have talked about some of the things that are going to be in the speech with us, with democratic consultants. i understand you're not going to get into the details of that, but if -- >> but. [laughter] >> the president has been talking for months about the competitiveness investments in infrastructure and education and innovation. if the president is calling for that, which are spending programs, would it not be responsible to offset that spending with cuts elsewhere -- if the president is concerned about the deficit -- debt and deficit, as he also has said, including in his saturday address to supporters? >> i think that you'll find that what you just said isn't going to be -- won't be contradicted in the speech. >> a quick question about bradley manning, suspected of

leaking information. is the administration satisfied that he's being kept in conditions that are appropriate for his accused crime, and that visitors to bradley manning are treated as any visitors to any prisoner would be treated? >> i truthfully, jake, have not heard a lot of discussion on that inside of here. i'm happy to take a look at something in terms of a specific question about that. i think that i would direct you to the authorities that are holding him. >> and this last question is a follow-up on the statement you read from the president on the terrorist attack in moscow. has the president been in touch with medvedev or putin? >> not that i'm aware of at this point. and if a call in the schedule is layered on, we will let you know. >> will the u.s. extend assistance in the investigation? >> absolutely.

as i said earlier, any assistance that the government of russia needs or wants, we certainly stand ready to help them. dan. >> robert, how much -- you said that the president's state of the union will focus on jobs. but how much of that speech will also look at foreign policy, and in particular, afghanistan? >> i think the president will certainly get into a discussion of some aspects of our foreign policy and will certainly talk about where we are and what progress has been made in our war in afghanistan, absolutely. >> and will it be an optimistic view in terms of the progress that is -- >> i don't think it will be different than the way we've been talking about it, and i would stay tuned for the speech. >> you're giving it away. [laughter] >> i think most of the people in this room would probably grade me as not having given a ton away at this point. >> a new poll, cnn poll pointing that the president's approval rating continuing to rise. you tend not to like those polls whenever we ask -- when

the numbers are going down. >> you haven't tended to ask me about one that's gone up. [laughter] >> now i'm asking you that. does the administration watch these numbers? and what do you credit for the spike? >> i watch these numbers because many of you ask me about your own polls during these briefings. but, look, i would go back to what we were saying, dan, in all honesty, back during the beginning of the lame duck session -- quite frankly, even somewhat directly after the election. the message that the american people had delivered in an election was that both sides have a stake in governing this country and both sides should put aside politics and game- playing to sit down and try to solve the biggest, most vexing problems that we have. i think in the state of the union address -- i'm sorry -- in the lame duck session, you saw that whether it was on taxes, whether it was on things like start, whether it was on issues like food safety or what have you, or "don't ask, don't tell," people put aside game-

playing and broad bipartisan majorities made progress on behalf of the american people. i think the american people saw two groups sitting down at a big table and figuring out how to solve our problems. and i think because of that, people have reacted positively to the progress that has been made, and not just the overall impact of it but how we went about doing it. and i think it's a pretty good road map on a whole host of issues as we move forward. >> one other question -- someone brought something up about this last week in the briefing -- about gun control. do we expect to hear the president talk anything more about that in light of what we've been seeing -- what happened out west? >> from a policy perspective,

i'll simply tell you that, as i said last week, i don't doubt that as a result of the impact of the issues of what happened in tuscon, that there will be a number of proposals that this white house and the congress will evaluate, and we'll wait until tomorrow to see what's in the state of the union. >> what is he favoring more so than another -- >> i don't have any outcome of that evaluation. >> thanks, robert. could you give any kind of tick- tock on the president's work on the state of the union, how much time he's spent, whether he was up late this weekend, how many hours he's put in, how close it is to completion? >> well, i think most of the -- most, if not all, of the policy decisions certainly have well been made. i know the president met with advisors in the oval just this

morning to go through sort of where it is. and, look, i anticipate, as per most of his speeches, that he'll -- he worked on it certainly this weekend and worked on it a lot of last week and i think he'll continue to go through it and make some line edits as -- probably well into early tomorrow evening. i should say this. we do have and we'll be putting out a fuller list of who has been invited and who will be in the first lady's box. i think some of you have seen or reported that daniel hernandez will be there, and that is accurate. the family of christina taylor green will be there, as well as dr. peter rhee from the hospital -- you all will recognize the name of the doctor who took the president around when he visited tucson a little more than a week ago. >> do you think he'll specifically recognize those people and ask them to --

>> i think in a larger sense he will. i honestly don't remember in the draft if he points directly to them. but obviously i think that will -- their presence and the presence of those that the president has met with and talked with throughout his travels around the country in the past year will be who will make up the box. and again, we'll have a longer list with some bios a little later this afternoon. >> so he will to some degree repeat the themes from the tucson speech in this speech? >> well, i think the president will, as he has -- as he did in last year's state of the union and as he has in tucson and the university of michigan commencement speech -- go through working together and the need to have a debate that is appropriate to the size of the challenges that we face from this country.

>> would it be fair to say that this speech is going to be different than the typical state of the union speech, which tends to be a laundry list of issues? >> that's probably right. >> how will it be different? >> i think this will be -- i don't think you'll see a laundry list of issues. >> so does that mean there are going to be very little in the way of specifics on policies and issues? >> i don't think this is intended to be a speech that is one where you spend big chunks of time walking through the specific machinations of policy. >> so when you say he is going to talk about getting the fiscal house in order, he's not going to have specifics on how to go about that? >> he will specifically speak tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. >> i'm not asking you for the specifics.

i'm just asking if he will have specifics on getting the fiscal house in order. >> my hunch is if i give you the answer to that, you'll have -- you'll curiously have a follow up. >> but then you'll refuse to answer that one -- >> i'm just cutting off the middleman. yes, sir. what question do you have that i can't answer? [laughter] >> i will give it a shot. [laughter] some senior administration officials have called some of the spending ideas as investment. why are these investments necessary, from your view? >> mike, i'm happy to play the shell game, but i think you've heard the president, throughout two years in here and two years on a campaign trail, talk about why it's important to make investments in our people and in the workforce. and i would stay tuned for what those may be. >> in terms of cuts, will we hear much about spending cuts tomorrow or do we wait for the budget? >> i'm going to point to the imaginary -- the state of the union -- it would be on this easel or on this board, the the state of the union is tomorrow

at 9:00 p.m. >> but we should expect more of the cuts when the budget is unveiled in mid-february or -- >> you should expect a very detailed budget when the budget is unveiled in february. yes, ma'am. i realize the futility of this exercise on both ends. >> robert, what time is the state of the union, please? [laughter] >> actually, we just moved it to 9:05 p.m., and largely so i could have a different answer to that question. stay tuned. it will be like 9:30 p.m. by the time we get -- >> what color tie will he be wearing? >> how many supreme court justices are going to attend, robert? >> you know, i have not answered my rsvp line on that today, les, so i don't know the answer. >> can i follow up one? >> no. >> no. >> so much for collegiality in here. [laughter] >> that doesn't extend to us -- >> can i sit next to lester? [laughter] >> that was -- april, that might have been a thought rather than a -- go ahead, i'm sorry. >> the president talked overseas in november, after the midterms, about the need for him to make a mid-course correction. those were his words. has he made that mid-course correction?

and what is it? >> look, i think the president has -- to speak broadly on this, savannah, i think there was a period of inflection after the elections. and we've seen it with a swearing-in of the new congress, that rather than washington and the white house and both houses of congress being controlled by democrats, there is now a split in our government, and ultimately a split in the responsibility of coming up with solutions for this country. >> that explains what happened, but how has he changed? >> well, what i would say on that is i think through a whole series of decisions on people leaving office or leaving working in this white house, i think it's pretty safe to say there's some aspect of new leadership and a new team here to deal with the challenges of

that shared responsibility. >> has the president moved ideologically to the center? >> the president is still the same president that we've had for more than two years. >> i'm not going to waste my time on any truly deep or substantive questions. but -- so maybe you could tell us about the event tonight with the freshmen members. how does the president plan on spending his time at this? is he going to mingle? is it a receiving line? >> i think he will mingle some and i think most of it will be i think not unlike you saw on a number -- or have seen in a number of events. i think you'll see the president will take pictures with a lot of the incoming members and have an opportunity during that to talk to them. and i'm sure they'll have plenty of things to tell the president about. >> and are there going to be

more events along these lines? there were some in the beginning of the administration. then they sort of -- cocktails at the white house sort of fell off. are you planning on doing more of these or is this a one-time thing? >> i think that whether it's meeting of the freshmen, whether it's lunches with the new republican leadership, i think you'll see the president, as he has in the past, extend an invitation to and hopefully renew those invitations to spend time sitting and talking together about the things that we agree on. we tend in this town to spend most of our time focusing on what we don't agree on, and i think, as i said earlier, the model of a lame duck session where people can have a civil conversation sitting at the same table making progress on issues is i think what the american

people are looking for. >> so he's going to be stepping these up, doing them more? >> i think you'll see more of them, sure. mark. >> robert, any comment on republicans on choosing budget chairman paul ryan to deliver the republican response? >> none that i can think of, no. i mean, he -- i don't have anything, really. >> in his speech last year, president obama said he wanted monthly bipartisan leadership meetings, but he only had five over the last year. do you know why you weren't able to have more? >> no, i mean, i think that goes back to laura's question. and i think if you draw the line back to what the president said in the first bipartisan meeting that he had with republican leaders after the election, i think he would, as he did in that meeting -- we didn't do enough of that. and again, i think -- i keep

going back to it -- i think what people saw at the end of last year, the ability for two sides not to agree on everything -- and that's not ever going to happen -- but the notion that we can find the common ground that we do have and make some progress on that -- i think anytime you have more events like -- more meetings, more events where you sit down and have that sort of rational conversation, not separated by two different boxes on television, i think is probably a productive thing for government. >> robert, you said that the major policy decisions have been nailed down now as of this

morning. does the same hold true for the major budget items to be decided yet, or are they still numbers and things like that -- >> my sense is most of that has been made because a lot of that stuff goes to the printer well ahead of time. you might ask why you still print the budget, and it's a question many of us in here have posed for the last two years and still haven't gotten a great answer. but that's what happens. >> can you talk about the plans for releasing either excerpts or anything tomorrow? >> i think we're going to -- i think you'll soon see an email with some briefing plans where we'll walk through the speech, likely embargoed until pretty close to its delivery. and i don't know about prospects in terms of excerpts. i think that, roger, is always largely dependent on what sections the president is done tinkering around with. >> robert, the president has often talked about not wanting to kick the can down the road, and making tough choices. and he said several times last year that this year he was really going to be seized with this effort to cut the deficit. it sounds like you're lowering expectations for this, in saying

he might talk about it in general or in the abstract, but for some reason, maybe because the economy is doing better or because he is, the state of the union is not the time that you're going to challenge anyone to make cuts -- >> again, i think i'd be largely accused, in taking your first 10 or so questions, of being far less than specific. so i hope you won't read into my unsatisfying answers some avenue one way or the other. >> so you're not going to lower expectations? >> i'm simply trying to maintain my -- >> you're just trying to get through this briefing. [laughter] >> -- my confidence throughout the remainder of this briefing, having virtually nothing with which i can enlighten you on. >> will you brief tomorrow, robert? [laughter] >> okay, i pass on to my -- >> this is like -- now we're like on 1980's game shows -- "pass." perry. >> can you talk about the

members of congress sitting together tomorrow? do you view it as important or just simply symbolic or maybe both those things to be true -- >> no, i mean, i was asked in here 10 days or so ago on it. i think it was -- i said it was an interesting idea. i think senator udall was one of the primary catalysts behind this idea. i think the president would say that anytime there's more collegiality, less acrimony and less partisanship either during the speech or during the debates and what have you on these issues, that that's a good thing for the process. again, i think we have to be mindful of that not just on a day like the state of the union but as we move forward throughout the course of the year. you all have been up there, i've been up there -- i mean, it gets to be a little bit on both sides of -- everybody stands up and cheers, then everybody --

it gets to be -- i can only imagine what the people watching at home must sort of think in watching the sort of up-and-down. and i think anytime when you're talking about something as reflective and as sober as the state of our union, to do that in an atmosphere where democrats and republicans are not divided by a central aisle, but sitting together, i think that's a good step. i think, again, the progress that we make overall on that issue will be dependent upon not just the steps that are taken to change where people sit tomorrow, but the atmosphere and the collegiality around that debate moving forward. and again, perry, i don't think anybody in this town or anybody in this country expects us not to wake up and still have some differences.

that is why we have a democracy and why we have the system that we have. that's not to say, though, that as we're having some of those debates and discussions, that we can't look at what unites rather than divides us and see if we can't make some progress on that. i think you'll hear the president talk about that tomorrow. >> robert, a couple quick things. first, do you have a firmer date for when the budget will be released? >> i know it's the week of the 14th. i don't know whether it's the 14th or maybe the 15th. but i think at this point, just that week. i know obviously there had been some delay with jack being held up through confirmation that moved that timeline a little bit toward the week of the 14th.

comehat's when it will out. >> when you speak of things like investments for innovation and transportation, the workforce, is that -- and there's been a lot of attention to that being spending -- is that also inclusive of tax incentives -- because that's been a lot of the program to date -- or is it all spending? >> i think that -- well, you can certainly have a debate about whether -- accounting debate about tax cuts and spending and what have you. i think you'll hear the president broadly discuss both of those. >> and speaking of tax expenditures, that was one of the things the fiscal commission targeted for higher revenues. but just generally speaking, in last year's state of the union, he -- when he first said he'd be creating a fiscal commission, he said that this would be a way in which -- it would not just be a gimmick that would allow us to say we've solved a problem. and yet he's, two months later, not said much of anything about the commission's recommendations, aside from saying he'd look at it. >> well, jackie, again, i think largely that is because the exercise -- look, the exercise of the commission, which was,

again, in the eyes of the president and i think the members that participated in that commission, an important way of going through and talking about and coming to some recommendation on a series of very tough issues. i think that process from our standpoint -- the next part of that process obviously is the introduction of our budget. so i know that it's not the most satisfying answer in the world, but i think i'd judge some of this stuff not just by tomorrow but what you see in the president's budget in a

couple of weeks. >> but is that report just essentially on a shelf now, like so many others? i mean, that's where it will be if he doesn't do something with it. >> again, i think you're going to have a very long and a very serious conversation in this town over the course of the next year to two years about how we get our fiscal house in order. i think that is -- again, this is not -- as i said early in this briefing to erica's first question, this is not about whether or not we're going to do this; it's about how we're going to do this. so i think that is something you'll hear and see take up a lot of time in the next many months. >> is he starting it tomorrow night? is he starting that conversation tomorrow night, or not? >> we should get together around 9:00 p.m. and listen. i know, mara, it's just -- you know, we have this weird thing about the president giving the speech. >> just a quick follow-up. some of the harshest critics to the bowles-simpson commission were democrats -- nancy pelosi and others. does part of having that conversation include president obama getting his own party to be prepared to have a serious conversation? >> jake, i don't -- i think that the president would likely tell you that one group in a party or one party alone is not going to

come to a series of decisions that allow us to solve this problem. we didn't get into this overnight. we didn't get into this because of one set of ideas. and it's going to take working together to get out of it. >> but the bowles-simpson commission very specifically, in terms of social security reform, talked about increasing benefits for poorer seniors, and then means testing benefits for older seniors. that became, in the mouths of capitol hill democrats, this commission wants to cut social security. i didn't hear a word from the president in terms of their unfair characterization of the recommendations. >> i'm not going to get into the specifics of what is or what isn't in the speech. yes, sir. >> can i ask about the specifics of the day after the state of the union speech?

specifically, why is the president going to manitowoc and -- >> because it's near green bay [laughter] >> and it's in a swing state? >> -- and it's a humbling experience for a bears fan. no, look, i think you'll see the president go through -- and we'll have more on this as we get closer, in terms of his activities. this is an extension of some of the visits that he's done over the course of many months to go and talk with folks out in the country, to visit businesses and schools and hear about what's working, and the expectations and the hopes that people have for continued progress economically throughout

the course of the next year. again, you'll see us not as much highlight stuff that we've been involved in, but things that are working at a state and local level that are important in dealing with the challenges that you'll hear the president discuss on tuesday. >> and building on the state of the union theme on competitiveness and jobs and stuff like that? >> absolutely, absolutely. >> thank you. [laughter] >> i'll do a couple more because -- >> robert, i had a question [laughter] >> i have some questions for you on marriage. back in 1996, when the president was running to become illinois state senator, he stated in a questionnaire response to what is now the windy city times that he supports same-sex marriage. he wrote, "i favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." that's not the president's current position. has he backtracked on an earlier commitment he made to gay and lesbian americans? >> i think there's a whole host of issues that i would direct you to during the campaign on different questionnaires. and i would again reiterate what the president has said recently on that issue. >> but do you dispute the accuracy of this questionnaire response? >> again, i'm happy to send you the several thousand clips of which went around during the course of 2008 on a whole host of those issues.

thanks, guys. >> hold on, robert. >> robert, one question. >> don't leave us. >> we haven't even finished the third -- you have not finished the third row. >> somebody play that slow, sappy music -- >> robert, house republicans are introducing a bill to kill public financing of elections. it's going to come down next week, it seems. the president obviously didn't take public financing in 2008, but he has been a supporter of the system. where does the white house come down on this? >> sam, again, the president believes that -- certainly if you look back at the decisions that the president was critical of a year ago, the concern about special interest money in dictating the decisions that are made at the ballot box are obviously something that are greatly concerning of him. i have not and i don't know who here has seen the exact specifics of the legislation. but obviously ensuring that we have a fair campaign system is something that we all support. april. >> why did the president -- >> he said april -- i'm sorry. [laughter] >> i'm going to make you guys all sit in different seats for -- >> we do. >> do you think that will work, mark? >> -- like it will work in

congress. [laughter] >> speaking of seats, i have a question on seats. >> he still called on april. >> after april. >> thank you. >> that happened 45 minutes ago, and i've only been out here for half an hour. yes, ma'am. >> yes, robert. first of all, how many drafts are there of the state of the union so far? and where is the president rehearsing for tomorrow night? >> i have not heard where he might go over the speech. >> is it not in the family theater? >> i don't think he is -- i don't know that he has ever done it in there. in terms of -- we get different editions of his speech, but i honestly don't know that what's gone around is or isn't the full number of different drafts. obviously, this is something that the president has spent a lot of time working on and writing down thoughts on for quite some time. >> and also on the issue -- going back to the issue that we raised last week on gun control. cities like chicago and

washington, d.c. have gun violence and gangs. and president obama, being such a loyal native of chicago and knowing what has happened there, why has he not since being president pushed anything on issues of gun control? is it because it's a hot potato issue for democrats? >> no, look, again, i think that -- first, you're talking about a series of, in some cases, state, in some cases, local issues in terms of different laws that govern the purchasing of or the possession of guns in those jurisdictions. look, there's no doubt that the gang violence that's resulted in the murders of kids in chicago and washington and throughout the country are

issues that are important to this administration and important to this president, particularly as you said, given his hometown of chicago. there have been efforts at doj and other places to see what measures can be taken to help those localities deal with many of these problems, understanding that, april, i think the president will be the first one to tell you that laws alone by any jurisdiction or any government are not going to -- are not ever going to fully stop what happens to young people who -- i think he's said in different speeches -- have a hole in their heart that lead them to do the types of things that result in killing kids

their own age. i think those are -- these are issues that have to be met with responses not simply at a state, local or federal level, but at a level in -- at kitchen tables and in churches all over the country. tommy. >> let me follow up on -- sort of two quick ones. one is a follow-up from last week. first of all, yesterday on "meet the press," house majority leader eric cantor was asked if he would reject birther crazy talk, and he wouldn't. but he did allow that he believes that the president is a united states citizen. and i'm wondering if you think that republican leaders ought to reject that kind of birther talk and -- >> i think rational people have come to the conclusion, many of them years ago, that the president is -- was born in hawaii and is a citizen of the united states of america. >> do you think the republican

leaders ought to reject that sort of thing, and do you think they have a duty to do that? would you do that if the situation were reversed and it was sarah palin, for example, whose eligibility were being questioned? would you do that? >> well, remember, there were concerns about the eligibility of the republican presidential nominee's birth in the panama canal zone, and president obama joined efforts to ensure that efforts were taken to, again, ensure that if there were any questions about what that meant for your citizenship -- tommy, again, i think rational people have long ago, many when they first heard and saw the president, come to the conclusion of his citizenship. >> why did the president -- >> and secondly, i had a follow from last week. i asked you last week if the president was going to talk about repealing doma or about same-sex marriage in the speech. and if you want to volunteer an answer on that, you can. but i also asked you if -- >> i will volunteer that, as i

told keith, it's around 9:05 p.m. tomorrow. >> my follow-up is -- >> your follow-up to my non- answer? [laughter] >> i know, but i also asked you if the president -- he said his personal view on same-sex marriage is evolving, and so i wanted to follow up and see, has he come to a new personal view and -- >> as i said earlier, i don't have an update to what -- to reiterating that it's something that he thinks a lot about. >> do you know when he might speak about that if he's not going to speak about it? >> i don't. i don't. >> is there any plan in the future? >> i don't know if -- i don't have that with me. >> robert, do we have -- >> i may have run out of timeouts. >> the president on friday named mr. immelt as head of his council on jobs and competitiveness. do we know the other members? have you put out a list of the other members? >> i don't think we've put out a list of those members. my guess is they'll be comprised not dissimilarly to some broad makeup of what you've seen

before. i think you'll see people that are -- those that have worked in government, those that have worked in business, those that have worked in labor and workforce issues. i think the president wants a broad viewpoint as we transition from the perab structure of focusing on the decisions that have to be made immediately to prevent us from sliding from a recession into a depression, now to focusing on, as we've seen now 12 months of positive job growth, how do we see that growth not simply continue but become greater, and how do we make a series of decisions that put us on stronger footing for the long term? >> the machinists union, if i may follow up, the machinists union today put out some numbers showing that ge is one of the major exporters of

american jobs over the last five years. so doesn't the president and mr. immelt, as the chairman of the competitive council, sort of contradict the president's message that we have to create new jobs here in america? >> well, i'd say first and foremost, bill, i don't think the message is contradictory, largely because what we did was -- the stop that we made was to visit the birthplace of general electric, a place where the company is bringing back jobs from overseas back into, in that case, upstate new york and back into this country. i think virtually every one of the -- as you walked around the floor of that factory, you saw that virtually every one of the enormous pieces of equipment -- the turbines for different types of energy implements -- almost

all of them or a good measure of them were going overseas. we're manufacturing -- bringing jobs back in order to manufacture products in this country that then get sold overseas and help support jobs here in america. i think that, in many ways, will be one of the challenges that our country faces over the course of the next many years. and i think whether it's general electric, other companies, or other individuals that help highlight that, i think you'll hear the president talk about it and highlight it even more. >> why did the president -- >> hold on. can we just -- i know this is crazy. just lester, and then i'll take a couple of more questions. >> thank you. >> just you will not get -- this includes you, too, lester -- you don't get called on because you can yell the loudest. >> yes, he does. [laughter] >> well, go ahead. >> that's exactly why he got called. >> you're a peach, too, jake. [laughter]

>> why did the democrat proposal to break up partisan seating at the state of the union come only this year after the democrats became such a distinct minority in the house? >> read the first part again. >> why did the democrat proposal to break up partisan seating at the state of the union come only -- >> lester, did you identify a democratic conspiracy with which to co-mingle the seating? ah! can i just mention -- >> it didn't happen when the republicans were a minority. i'm just wondering if you could explain why. >> well, i can't speak for the republicans. but i will say that 52 minutes into this briefing, news has been made and lester has uncovered the grand conspiracy of losing congress in order to comingle seats. [laughter] >> you are a funny man. >> if only we had thought of that earlier. yes, ma'am. >> how damaging are the leaked palestinian papers to any future for the peace process?

>> well, look, first and foremost, as i understand news reports, of which we've seen many, these are purported documents from another entity. i can't speak to their veracity. i think our focus continues to be on getting the two sides back to important direct negotiations, with our involvement, in order to see progress toward a two-state settlement. that's what the president has been focused on, and that's what people that work in here and others like george mitchell have spent a lot of time in the region trying to do. so i can't speak to what is or isn't in those documents. >> and will the president speak in the state of the union about the rise in sectarian violence in the middle east against religious minorities, including christians, muslims and bahai's? >> obviously, i don't know that that's in the speech. yes, sir. >> will the president be following through next month on the pledge to get republicans up to camp david?

and i'll ask a follow up -- what's the point of that? i mean, what would be accomplished if that were done? >> well, i think -- i'll see where that rests. i know that -- i think i'd go back to what laura and others have asked. i think whether -- and mark as well -- whether it's a bipartisan meeting in the cabinet room or in his private dining room over in the residence or over at camp david, i think whenever these groups have a chance to sit down and away from the partisan back- and-forth and, again, speak directly to one another, i think you have a better opportunity, again, to find out what -- not what you disagree on, but what you agree on and how you can move that forward. i think that was, again, the basis for what we saw in getting a lot done in december. and i hope and i think the president hopes that it is a model as we move forward. being able to spend some time focusing on those issues that we all believe are important and some of those common solutions i think would do all of us well, and i know it would do the

american people well to see that as well. thanks, guys. >> tuesday, president obama delivers the state of the union address to a joint session of congress. c-span's coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with our preview program followed by the president's speech at 9:00 p.m., and then the republicans' response by paul ryan from wisconsin. that is live on c-span, c-span

radio and online at c-span.org. use our web site for enhanced coverage. you can also add your own comments to our facebook page while you watch our live streaming video and see reaction from members of congress following the president's address live on c-span2. >> you are watching c-span, bringing the politics and public affairs every morning. washington journal is our live call-in program connecting you with elected officials, policy makers and journalists. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house and weeknights, policy forums. on the weekends, you can see our signature interview programs. you can also watch our programming online c-span.org and is all searchable.

c-span, washington your way. a public service created by america's cable companies. >> in a few moments, looking into contracting in iraq and afghanistan. in about 2.5 hours, house debate on the rule for a bill that would cut federal spending back to 2008 levels. after that, the march for love on the anniversary of the supreme court decision legalizing abortion. >> on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will talk with mick melanion of south carolina. the democrats achieve -- chief deputy whip, diana and will focus on the state of the union speech with major garrett.

washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 p.m. eastern. >> on television, on radio, and online, c-span, bringing public affairs to you, created by cable, it is washington your way. >> the c-span network provides network, nonfiction books and american history. it is all available for you on television, radio, online and on social media networking site spirit find our content online anytime. we take c-span on the road. bring your resources to your community. the c-span networks, now available in 100 million homes, greeted by cable, provided -- provided as a public service. >> officials in charge of three construction projects testified today about cost overruns.

the commission on wartime contract and is examining contracts in iraq and afghanistan and it will issue its final report in july after it this is 2.5 hours. >> thank you to the panel. it could in the you all to stand up with me. i will put you under oath. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. please be seated. let the record so it does show that the witness's answer in the affirmative. it is good for me that we follow the order that we have. general, could you provide your

army corps of engineers. i appreciate the opportunity to come before you to discuss the construction program of the challenges. our meetings here in washington help us improve and execute our mission better. mission accomplished and sits at the top of our list of priorities. the corps of engineers -- the workload in afghanistan has went up substantially in the last few years. a surge in u.s. forces and efforts to build the afghan security forces. the corps has increased staffing

in afghanistan from around to every 50 military and civilian -- 250 civilian and military personnel. we established a transatlantic division headquarters in winchester virginia in 2009 to provide focus and control for the whole unit. we have expanded use for reach back to all eight divisions. challenges remain and i know we are here to talk about that today. security, corruption, providing oversight in a difficult environment, managing the workload, sustainability and site preparation. i think we have learned from the evolving environment that we have learned from our mistakes.

i think that we did better in mitigating the challenges. on the heels of our 2009 review, i see one specific mission being particularly critical and seminal for our move forward. this was issued by the commander on october 9, 2010. the tin key principles -- of the 10 key principles are real drivers of action that come from the troops. these principles and guidelines moveless from an era of construction that was trying to the conflict itself -- to de conflict itself. i think that these guidelines put us in a position to

undertake projects that we can accomplish. this can be the root cause of other things that impact our ability to execute. the guidelines of hiring representatives and use of remote sensing elements to inspect and receive feedback are helping to reduce the security impact. corruption is another challenge and we are getting at that through administration and minimizing brokering contracts. we coordinate with task force 2010. we educate our contractors in adopting best practices and we implemented a tracking system. timely and quality oversight is

critical. it is tied to having the necessary personnel on the ground. it is a big task. it is tough. we have a large pool of expertise to draw from. we maximize the use of reach back. most significantly, this is a joint effort is all three services bringing together their unique capabilities and business models seamlessly. site selection preparation has been an issue. we have gone a long way in solving that. i think we have given more attention to drainage planning and geological oversight. suitability and sustainability, i know we will talk about that. we are using designs that are

more easily constructed and are easier to maintain. we have contracts in place for these facilities both in the north and south. we face a lot of other challenges, but i think we have come a long way in the past year or so. i welcome this opportunity to talk to you so that we get better at what we are doing in theater. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. mr. mcglynn, please. >> this is the fifth engagement before this committee since 2008. we appreciate the strong working relationship and productive exchanges we have had. we have improved programs and

will insure better practices. the bureau of narcotics affairs support rule of law and criminal justice programs to run the world. in afghanistan, our programs are important to defeating the insurgency. the key area for today's hearing is renovation contracts. both program areas are crucial for the effective operation of the civilian justice program. we have significance endeavors in both areas based on close coordination with the host government and they are aimed at building a stronger afghanistan capacity. i understand from commission staff the focus of your interest and the central training center for police training both in and durable -- to bull -- kabul.

tradition in the past was overcrowded and inhumane. prisoners controlled key portions of the prison until 2008. the government of afghanistan, supported by united states, retook control. to make it a more effective facility, we developed a renovation project with the government of afghanistan in 2009. as part of using this, -- the project included renovation of the kitchen, staff barracks and sells and these are now nearing completion.

problems were identified as a result. staff reported serious problems considering the quality and pace of the work. there were indications of fraud. my dear terminated the services of the contracting office rep in may of 2010. we stopped work orders in november 2010. an afghan firm is currently assessing the progress and when he designs are reviewed, any solicitation for completion will be issued. -- a new solicitation for completion will be issued. this has been an important part of our overall police training

program in afghanistan. this has been a priority since 2002. we have implemented a program with the department of defense and in close cooperation with the ministry of interior. the central training center is one of several sites where we train afghan police in basic civilian police skills. this product has encountered some challenges. in december, a building that was to be razed was declared a historic building. in december 2010, one of the subcontractors defaulted. project completion has been delayed. let me say two words before concluding.

we have several contract options. we have an integrated management contract oversight process. for the ctc project, it is supported by experts in washington. they work closely with eight in- country contractors in afghanistan. our model for the project is based on an individual contract with an individual firm. with that, let me just say that we -- you know that afghanistan is a dangerous place to work and we are committed to getting our objectives. thank you. >> thank you.

colonel cassidy? >> good morning members of the commission. thank you for the opportunity to be here before you. we have evolved over the past 20 years to provide engineering and vital services, enabling sustainable airforce and join the solutions. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff asked us to create a bridge for construction services. in january of 2004, we were asked to support the coalition in iraq. in april, 2006, we started working afghanistan. we have awarded over $6 million in construction for which price in the 1 billion is in afghanistan.

we plan, execute and deliver construction services to the following customers. united states central command, therefore central, army central -- airforce central, army central. we compete within the idiqs. we subcontract orders. there is a decision matrix tailored to the type of contract. the project management

minimizing our civilian and military footprint, leveraging contractor expertise, we eliza -- utilize local nationals. the combination provides diversity. are in country military's civilian and contract employees provide the daily construction oversight, the santonio provides technical, financial, administrative support along with continuity of the construction program. due to changing requirements or site conditions. none of our afghanistan -- as we

drive begich strive to provide timely construction support, we welcome recommendations. we understand there is interest in several areas, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> please proceed. >> i am the assistant to the enmesh trader and director of the office of afghanistan and pakistan affairs at usaid. first of want to compliment you on the critical work of this commission. i began working in afghanistan in 1993 during the time when our country was ignoring the plight of afghanistan to our mutual peril. i spent many of the last 18 years working on that country, and i have written and testified extensively about the effort that the u.s. has undertaken in

afghanistan spent -- since 2001. our mission has been and remain a central to u.s. national security and our civilian assistance efforts are essential to their success. i have repeatedly raised concerns about the corrosive effects of corruption, ways, and failed expectations in our efforts there. one of the reasons i took this job was to improve our performance and accountability. this has been a dramatic year for progress that u.s. aid. the ford initiative is applying the agenda for accountability and leadership of a global level. in the short time i have been at

the agency thus far, we have initiated aggressive reforms in afghanistan and at the very heart of what this commission was mandated to address. accountability in the provision of development assistance is among our highest priorities in afghanistan. we have bricky initiatives into place this year. we have developed the accountable assistance for afghanistan initiative to ensure that proper procedures are in place to help protect assistance dollars from waste, fraud, or otherwise being diverted from their development purpose. we are utilizing mechanisms that provide the most visibility, limiting layers of subcontracting and dramatically increasing competition in bidding and award process. we are inventing all afghan companies and personnel working on usaid projects, enhancing

projects controls on funds, performing additional project oversight in high-risk areas using multiple monitoring techniques, and utilizing the full arsenal of oddity mechanisms. one of the biggest problems has been the capacity to fulfill its oversight obligations to the full list. we are increasing our own capacity to undertake proper oversight and accountability. we have increased at an overall in afghanistan, with 60% of our staff outside of kabul. we are serving three of the country in the district support teams and regional platforms and getting out more frequently to evaluate the performance of the programs they oversee. we have ordered a doubling in size of our contract and staff this year which has already tripled since 2007.

to advance national security of said project objectives, we are stricken capacity to design and build and maintain roads, increase electricity and design and construct clinics, hospitals, and schools. i cannot over emphasize the challenges involved in these efforts as international partners combat of vicious insurgency and terrorist threat. security concerns on construction projects are paramount. in 2010, attacks on civilian efforts rose sevenfold. managing the safety of u.s. international and afghan personnel as well as their associated costs is a central undertaking for us. geography, remote and mountainous terrain present huge challenges as that the relative lack of specialized expertise in afghanistan to undertake complex

construction efforts. i want to take a moment to acknowledge the immense pressures, political, security, family, that our staff and partner server under every day. i personally lost friends and colleagues every year of this long campaign. there is no question that we as a nation and the agencies represented here before you can and must do better. it is important not to lose sight of the positive impact these programs are already making. our investment in schools, clinics, roads, and electricity have dramatically expanded access for millions of ordinary afghans to education, health care, and the economy. nothing we do in afghanistan is easy, and the challenges we face in construction have reflected that. but we and i have committed to asking better of our cells. we have already begun making the critical changes needed to improve our efforts and enhance

our prospects for success. thank you. >> will have a round of questions now and proceed accordingly. this is the onset of an educational situation, without trying to criticize it, i am trying to understand or let you explain -- you have a very large, organic organization in afghanistan where you do subcontracting back here, but you do a lot of it over there. the air force does most of it out of texas. you have a very robust quality assurance organization in country in afghanistan and news

organizations to do your quality assurance to be sure that contractors are doing adequate quality assurance. i will star with colonel cassidy because you are the proverbial new kid on the block in the sense that the corps has been doing this a long time. you have filled the breach that was critically needed in the air force has stepped in and taken a different approach. can you talk about what led to that and why you are taking that approach of using companies to provide adequate oversight? >> we are using the same methods used a side and anywhere around the world. we have a limited number of military engineers and civil servants that allows us to hire help title to -- to hire out title ii.

we have about 100 titles ii contract employees in afghanistan at this point. they do quality assurance, making sure that are compliant with the quality control plan, and we have contrasting officer represented who make periodic site visits and resolve any differences that arise. we have done it to minimize our footprint in country and by using our worldwide contracts, we go to revoke prime contractors, over 40 on the list. we have nine working in afghanistan at this point. we feel we have been fairly successful with that. we have had challenges on some projects but we are moving forward and is just a different

model than the core uses. >> general, use a model where you do a good portion of it organically. is that because it is the tried and true corps model, or is there some other aspect? >> the corps of engineers is unique. we have two different business models. our business model meet our business requirements to do all the work that we do in the u.s.. the civil works infrastructure and inland waterways, hydropower and all the other business lines on the water infrastructure side in the u.s.. that makes up of the corps of engineers. we are able to draw on all of that to reach back and destroyed nearly 1000 of those people forward b.j. deploy a nearly

1000 of those people forward. they complement each other. we are not in competition with one another. >> you are not in competition with each other, but many of your projects and many companies to work with are similar looking in the same companies. i know you know that this pictorial up here is camp phoenix. the statements are very clear about expectations, and then sometimes the outcomes do not end up with the same situation. we had the opportunity to be briefed by your senior officer from airforce center of excellence. if you look on my right, you are left, that is a big picture of barracks that have been boarded up.

they were not completed, and if you look over here you see quarters where the military has put its people in and out of trying to scramble because those barracks are not done. -- your of reflects rejec officers said it does not represent the worked we do, but it was our work on our watch. one company was not paying their suggs. i am just reading from a briefing charge that you have presented. the owner and his company fled the country with roughly $2 million in fees because the construction was not working. they did not know what they were

doing. they took the $2 million and left town. in order to get the payment, it says a third tier subcontractor removed two of their 750 generators. so that they would get paid. you need generators to it the work done. you think of security, and they are high bolling of the generators out of one of the camps. when we ask the question, in the model, we said why did you not know about all these problems? i thought maybe we would find out that the contractor was not doing a good job. in your model, he was doing a good job, but his contract was not sufficiently funded. he had been told by his customer

to work in to other higher risks projects. he had done no quality assurance because his contract was a zero sum and he could only do it in other locations. so there was no quality oversight. the net effect of this is, it's incredible. it is worse than a comedy of errors because it is a case where they are not paying lower tier subcontractors. there is discussions about the guy came in and was bragging about his offside billows that he had in other countries. i know the model works, but the real question is, and you said you have some problems, that is a big problem.

>> camp phoenix is probably our worst case. it was one of our first projects in afghanistan and our focus was purely in iraq that point. we did not move enough resources to afghanistan to watch the project. one thing we did take, we did lessons learned from iraq to the afghanistan. it is different lessons in afghanistan, different skills for the people, different abilities. we had a lot more trouble in afghanistan with inadequate materials coming in. that would be stamped that they meet standards but they would not meet standards. it was the perfect storm, everything coming together that caused a lot of problems there. a lot of the issues we had our customer changes and changes to

the program as we went forward. we know we have problems at phoenix and we are working to fix those. >> i don't know if you have been here but there's a building next to it that has been inhabited, and yet project save had come in there and written up pages and pages. i was talking to some of the people living there and they sometimes -- they say sometimes if you don't have the right extensions it is like a sparkler. i was told have no other place to stay. there is is a michigan risk. you are breathing are exceptional. you did not try to pull any punches about the problem. we picked this randomly. any kind of commission that starts making the rounds on randomly picked, you start

running into issues like this. sometimes it pales against the actual experience. that is our concern, that you take your lessons learned. i commend you for frankly acknowledging the issues, but it goes without saying there are challenges that need addressed right now so the sobers don't have to live in facilities like that. -- so the soldiers don't have to live in facilities like that. >> thank you, my time is up. >> i want to start with you. in your testimony and your written statement, you talked

about accountability. i am glad you stressed that because that is the key word. accountability drives performance. the lack of accountability results in poor performance or no performance, and maximum accountability results in good performance. i am trying to square your quite commendable emphasis on accountability in your statement with what i think is the most important piece of paper in this hearing but that our staff put together for us. there is a january 10, 2011 article titled usaid awards firm with checkered record a $266 million note it afghan electricity deal. i will just read the first paragraph. the u.s. government is counting on a contractor with the record of cost overruns to handle a critical component of general david petraeus's plan to stabilize a volatile southern

afghanistan and deliver more power to this region. a $266 million contract for the birthplace of the taliban, the heat of the fight right now, the southern provinces, against a backdrop of a id having complained about their performance on a contract to supply power in kabul, a contract that ballooned in price to $300 million and was not just the cost overrun issue but also a timing issue. the other interesting piece of paper in our hearing book is the november 29 justification document that requested up the channels at a id approval for this no bid contract. it uses to interesting phrases. says that for various reasons,

it is uniquely provisions to undertake this project, and then uses the phrase is uniquely qualified. it seems that what they really intended to say which uniquely positioned, because they later explained what uniquely qualified means to simply be that they were already on the ground. it already had existing staff. there was not an alternative to them. my understanding is that the bulk of the work there was subcontracted out. against this backdrop, how can the american people take your claim that a id is taking accountability seriously if and no bid contract is awarded to a contractor with this record of poor performance?

>> let me take you back into the decisionmaking process over the last year as far as the contract for kandahar power is concerned and then we can go to issues of bell performance. the decision that was made to provide electricity this summer to con a heart was a decision that was discussed at the highest levels of our government as something that the new commander of our forces in afghanistan felt was absolutely paramount importance. it was a top agenda item for our military in their engagement. we have an operation to try to turn tendulkar -- kandahar.

the idea of generating power to the citizens in a visible fashion was made a top priority. it then that overall priority, the specific priority was placed on delivering more electricity to kandahar. the decision was made that the competitively awarded joint venture agreement would be used for that work. it was an agreement that was already in place. they were already in place in kandahar. their behalf of the joint venture that would have been performing in the electricity upgrades to provide additional power. we move forward to a contract that work under the existing agreements. that decision was made because that agreement was in place. at the same time, u.s. aid is

working on replacing that single iqc that had been awarded four years ago with held by multiple awardees. it would be broken down into multiple agreements for different things. there were be one for energy, one four road, and one for vertical structures. the agency takes very seriously and that it does not believe for accountability purposes and for competitiveness that it makes sense to rely on a single award. >> let me stop you there. when did the process start of providing these alternate contrasting vehicles going forward? when did this process dark? >> i would have to get back to you on the exact date. i am not certain when it began.

there was a commitment at the beginning of 2010 to initiate those procurements, it to replace the existing iqc. >> it was not until 2010 that we began putting in place alternate mechanisms? >> as far as i know, yes. the know what percentage of the contract was subcontracted out? let me explain the decision. >> please be as brief as you can. >> i think it is very important to understand what happened next. we are going to go with the existing competitive fully awarded agreement. in august, when this was lined up, it came to our attention for the first time that there was

discussion with the justice department. i am sure this is something we will return to. it became the decision of u.s. aid that while these negotiations for ongoing with the justice department in a settlement agreement, it was neither appropriate to use that joint venture agreement to move forward on this work nor was it safe to do so because we did not know what was going to happen at the outcome of that negotiating process. we were worried that the entire effort would be in peril. the decision we made to award a sole source contracts was merely taking the work out of the joint-venture and giving it to the same company that was going to conduct the work under the joint venture. it was awarded as a sole source instead of going back in august and read competing the entire venture. we felt that would simply take

too long in order to achieve the effects that we felt from a national security perspective for impaired to. >> let me just probe further. i understand the urgency here. that is clear. what puzzles me is black and veitch had been the subject of cost overruns. if the record shows clearly that they did not perform in a timely fashion with regard to the lan. >> there was a report on their performance and the second part of that, which is very important, is that when it was found that the project was being delayed, the power plant project

was being delayed, there is a very serious effort at remediation including replacement of leadership, a lot of additional oversight, and according to the audit, they dramatic turnaround performance on that project in the second year. we fell confident that clearly that had severe problems in the initial part, and that is well documented. we felt that do to change in leadership over the management both of the subcontractor and the entire joint venture, their performance had improved dramatically. it was our assessment that the performance improvement and their subsequent works in canada are -- in kandahar make it so that not only did they complete

the work on time, but that they would do so effectively. >> final question. just give me a sense of when that turnaround in performance happened? >> i would have to refer back to the record. it was before my time. it is my understanding -- i think it was essentially in the beginning of 2009 that substantial remediation efforts were undertaken to get the plant project back on track to improve the monitoring, oversight, and delivery of the program. >> this article says that in january of 2009, michael e. yates, the top official in afghanistan wrote a letter and expressed extreme

dissatisfaction with the companies progress on the plant. in this letter, he scolded the company for failing to keep a id delays.d of construction delet talked about many important deadlines missed, and usaid has lost confidence in the ability of their ability to complete the work. i think the timing is important. i would like to know exactly what time frame you are talking about when used to say the performance increase so substantially that it justified the sole source award. >> i will add to that, we would like you to provide clarification to those questions for the record. i doubt seriously if we will

have the time to totally pursue it here but i think everything the commissioner raises is absolutely on spot. >> you said in your statements that a decision was made to use the joint venture. who made the decision on that point, and you said it became the decision to not use the joint venture. who made that decision? >> on the first question, when you say the decision was made -- >> no, you said the decision was made. >> you are referring to the decision to use the joint venture. >> the decision to use the joint venture initially took place over months. in dialogue with the department

of defense, the department state and the afghan government, the decision was move forward. essentially i would say it was the u.s. government decision that this important program to deliver power to conduct our should move forward more expeditiously than had been understood earlier in the year. i believe it was in july that the decisions were made that often included funding. >> i am not clear on who made the decision to fund the venture. >> i took over responsibility for the office in august. the initial decision to use the

joint venture -- >> it was the administrator's decision. >> but i don't know that the decision -- >> can you find out during a hearing and let us know? >> let me be clear. the decision to not use the joint venture and to use the sole source was the decision of our office. >> specifically it was your decision? >> i ultimately signed the agreement. >> in the context of the interagency discussion to go forward with an important initiative to bring power to to kandahar, it did you raise the discussion that the urgency of it would drive you to use an unacceptable contractor? did you mentioned that in the

decision to use a sole source contractor to do something important, did you or the administrator or did anyone raise to the national security system, we are going to have to do this using a contractor that we have big problems with? >> no, we didn't, because it was our clear understanding that they had dealt with the class problems that had been identified, and we were confident in their ability to perform. >> i cannot let you off the hook today completely. we have heard and read in numerous sources, we heard most recently from the general this morning about the lack of master plans, whether for energy or construction or many of the other things that are going on in country. would you talk to us about the

impact of lack of master plans on any of the work that the corps is responsible for of or participated in? >> master planning obviously is very important, especially on installations that are growing by leaps and bounds and where more and more construction is being put in where there is already a lot of infrastructure. master planning is really important so you are not doing things over, not moving roads when you want to put a water line in or tearing something up that was just saved. it is very important. it makes the build out of that installation much more efficient over time. in cases where installations -- there are master planning efforts going on right now. there are 71 master plans for different installations in the works right now, with more to

come. it will give us a stronger framework to integrate our construction. when you build in an area where master planning was not done, it just causes a lot more day-to- day interface to find out what is going on. if you don't have a master plan , it makes the construction all that more involved. it takes day-to-day coordination with the owners of the installation to make sure that you are not and doing something that was already put in place. master planning is absolutely critical. >> did you feel comfortable with the state of the master plan is that you deal with in country? >> you would have to go installation by installation. they are all at different levels of maturity.

they are working very hard to get master plans for all installations in place. >> let me go now to a sustainability that we talked to india earlier panel. you mentioned in your written testimony that you have criteria regarding project sustainability. would you explain to us, since there are so many projects that have come to light that don't seem to be sustainable, would you explain to us how that process works with the corps? >> i will approach it a couple of different ways. in terms of sustainability, facilities that are buildable by local constructors' that have materials readily available that are sensitive to the culture of the area. if you put the western style

sink in a bathroom, that is not required over there. you would not put wohlers then it that are required to be heated by gas -- would not put the oilers in. we standardized designs for certain facilities, the ones that you see a lot of. >> why did it take so long to get to this point? >> in terms of standardizing, it is the maturation of our footprint over there. the record workload we have experience here in the state's, to meet the deadlines, in order to do that we cannot design every single building by itself. we needed standard designs to a debt building facilities. our district in afghanistan and

as we established our relationships with our customers, with the rotation of people over time, it has taken time to get the proper process is in place to make that a reality on the ground. i mentioned about the operations order that was released by the commander that gives construction contract in guidelines for afghanistan. it gives a vision and intent on the commanders part and give some pre -- some key principles on things like sustainability and lays out 16 criteria to make sure that everyone involved, their interests are recognized. simple things like picking the right site location, taking security into account, in user participation, and what the

building should look like in the end. >> did include local participation during the process, or is it just the initial sign off for project? >> we do local participation -- >> i don't mean the builders, i am talking about the end user. who first tells you i don't need it sinks? >> the end user for a specific installation is probably a number of unit that will occupy those barracks. the and it belongs to the ministry of defence. there is a dialogue to achieve standards that will provide buildings that meet life safety codes. on the ground when we are building this thing, the

interface with the local people who are going to occupy it. >> in your testimony there is a statement in their that it does the participate in the process in that host nation project selection. is that true? how do you guys then integrate the afghan government into your projects? where is that done? >> the projects are selected and prioritized by a joint program integration office in afghanistan. they go through and worked the entire list of construction projects that are required and they dispersed them out to either us or the court to build projects. our local interaction with the

local government is somewhat limited because by the time we go in there, we are counting on the sides to be made available to us. if there are people on the sides, the controlling authority, the landowner is also responsible for providing the site. >> i am not worried about the side. i am talking about some of the cultural issues, for example. how do you know you are building the right kind of barracks? we struggle with some of the same issues as the general went through. for the barracks on a military post that we are going to use, there are criteria that are set out there. we use the same criteria that the army does. that has changed over time.

>> thank you, commissioner. when we discussed going ahead with the power initiative and the desire to me the time lines of general petraeus, there were issues at aid which had to be answered and dealt with by the military. i remember three, and it is the second one that is particularly interesting. one was the questioning about whether electric power was going to be a counterinsurgency tool. the second one was that it would irritate the karzai government's to take on the energy costs. we have already heard about

this for other diesel plants, that since it costs 22 cents per kilowatt hour for diesel and a fraction of that for alternative sources, i know in kandahar they cannot get a transmission line in, but it costs less to do things differently. what was done, what was the answer about how the irritation of the karzai government would be dealt with? was it by donor subsidies for a couple of years? >> i think that the decision was accompanied on our part by intensive thought about how do we make the power supply to southern afghanistan more sustainable. while there was a move forward

on putting additional diesel generation capacity in place this year in kandahar and that was being done by the department of defense spending their funds on diesel generators, we agreed to do several things. >> could you get to what it is that would remove the irritation of the karzai government ?uestio >> it is in our interest to look at the long term more sustainable power supply. we are in discussions with the afghan government about both the further rehabilitation of the dam to deliver hydroelectric power as well as the extension of the northern network which is

largely bringing in cheaper power, as you noted before, from central asia. and then delivering it further to the south and east of the country. the kabul proper plan is not the main power supply for kabul, it is back up. last month that pled guilty -- that a plea agreement -- they were defrauding by known false overhead billings of aid.

the chief financial officer and the comptroller also both pled guilty to the same charges. according to press reports, aid made them pushed out and buy out the chairman of the holding company who was also -- it had to be bought by the company. what is your reaction to the criminal events? >> when i learned about the allegations in august and the investigations that have been going on for some time by the justice department, i was profoundly disappointed and very concerned about the impact of

not only the individual issues being investigated, but more broadly, how that reflects on our ability to be good stewards of our assistance effort. i believe that the settlement that was made was a very positive step in that not only was usaid able to recover the funds that had been allegedly defrauded from it, but collected something in the neighborhood of triple damages back for the american taxpayer. there was a fairly severe approach of dealing with louis berger to bring them back into compliance.

>> i appreciate your reaction. i want to ask something about the kandahar our initiative. aid lumped together in that several different pieces that have been alluded to. the big pieces are in the diesel power plant in the connor our industrial park, and also the dam which is not in con anbar province but in helmand province, which is 100 miles away and which is not diesel powered but is already there as a hydroelectric project. maya understanding is that the work on the dam was not done by black and veitch but by louis

berger and what you said before was technically correct in that they were on the ground in, and are but they did not have prior experience with that facility. you could say the joint venture did, but they were quite clear on who did what. you said a number of individual contracts for the different components could potentially be issued to conduct the work needed. wouldn't it have been, and i will not go further into why you did or did not do it, but wouldn't it have been potentially -- could we talk about the different components that could potentially be issued, couldn't the dam component, the hydroelectric turbines component, be

separately awarded? >> it may be beyond my technical competence to answer your last question. it is my understanding that the reason these were grouped together was a question of timing. >> i am trying to figure out what else could you possibly have been talking about in your jna when you said potential components could be issued separately. what else could have been talking about? >> what i am answering is that i believe these were all included at the same time. >> i am not asking why you did. i am talking about your phrase they could potentially be issued. i want to know what the

different components for that could potentially be issued. isn't obvious that when you consider that possibility, the different components were the hydroelectric dam on one side and the diesel plant on the other side? >> it may be that what you are referring to as a transmission line as the additional component that was not included as part of this contract. we looked at the timing of those. the transmission line was the piece that was left out. >> this is about what was put in, not what was left out. i will repeat for the fourth time what is in the jna. i wonder if you could check during the break what other could possibly be the components. let me ask a question about the time line.

today in a story in the associated press there is a letter from the agency's afghan director about the con our power initiative. -- the kandahar power initiative. usaid intends to procure services through an open -- my colleague has already worked with you to get the time line straight. in august, you were on the verge of contract and this, after months of a preparatory process with the joint venture. somewhere between february and when you started that process for the joint venture, at what

point did you turn away from the promise of full and open competition between february and august? >> we never turned away from the promise of full and open competition. the plan was to replace the existing joint venture. the decision specifically in terms of those components that went into the joint venture, those were accelerated the to the issues that i have outlined. >> at what point was the decision made? you were talking with them but between february and august, the decision was made? >> the timeline of wanting to put in place the newly competed awards did not match with our need to contract the work for,

dark power this summer when that decision was being made -- for condor are power. >> i am sorry, but i really am trying my best. was the statement made in 2010 not about the kandahar plant? >> we did not have the decision making mechanisms in place in time for the decision to be made. >> and when did you change your mind on having the competitive process he said in february 2010 you would have? >> no one changed their mind. what changed was the time line for our need to contract that work. >> when did you change the time line? >> the decision to move forward more rapidly was made roughly between june and august in a series of discussions that i've

already described to you. >> and so it was between june and august? >> exactly. prior to that we had not anticipated we would have to move forward with that word before the new competed mechanisms were in place. >> thank you. >> i have to start with a minor housekeeping announcement. we ask for your testimony in advance in time to prepare for the hearing and we did not receive it until saturday afternoon. would you commit to us that in the future we will the written testimony on time? >> absolutely. >> i want to talk about the prison project. we talked about the training command in afghanistan having

800 projects on the books. how many projects does inl have in afghanistan? >> we have to significant ones, the main renovation and the central training. >> if we spend $25 million in construction a year, it would be on the upper limit. >> this statement says in december 2008, the afghan central prison director had to form an emergency response team to train corrections staff to retake control of the prison. briefly, what does that mean? >> somewhat amazingly, the parts of the prison were basically under control of insurgents and criminals.

it was a complete mess. the government of afghanistan decided to form a strong police, military intervention unit and there was funding provided from both the u.s. military and ourselves. >> to offensively we take it. >> to fight their way back and clear out the insurgents. >> so there is a contract for two afghan companies to design and construct it. your statement says these accomplishments of significant have not materialized without challenge and some delay.

the delay was on the two projects you have in the war zone -- the owner of one company provided confidential bid proposal information to the owner. is that accurate? >> i am not sure the details of all the allegations. there is a continuing investigation under way in the decision. >> is that an inaccurate statement? >> i don't think it is, but i cannot confirm it. >> the ellerbe provided -- apparently has arrived in your contract officer representative who is supposed to oversee the contract. >> that was the allegation, yes, sir. -- barely has a right to your

contract officer. -- apparently has brightened the year contract officer. have you fired that government employee gregoire >> he would be considered to have some government functions. >> was he a contractor or a government employee? >> he was a personal services contractor. they would have full intergovernmental functions not to approve a contract but to it buys. >> can i inject clarification? mine understanding and i went to quite a length. this individual was more than the corps. he was responsible for

everything from specifications to oversight to you name it. is that accurate? >> he played a central role. >> he was the chief engineer and was replaced by someone else who came in and have that title the brief says. >> i think it is a good general characterization. >> i do too. >> you have two big projects in afghanistan. the one we are talking about, afghan forces and military have to fight their way back in. you had to contracts with afghan firms. -- two contracts with afghan firms. why wasn't the judgment to -- was it to put a contractor in charge of contractors? >> we would still have our other oversight mechanisms. which are the contracting officer.

>> where is that person located? >> in frankfurt. >> that is in the rpso in frankfurt. >> i that that individual. has that person ever visited afghanistan? >> i do not know. >> would you find out, for the record? >> what other oversight mechanisms to you have? >> we have a senior director and deputy director for all programs. >> where are they located? >> they are in kabul. >> how often do they get out and do they get to go? >> they get out frequently. >> just quantify that for us. >> i would be glad to. >> i have visited myself several times. >> they are out quite a bit. sited and travel around

quite frequently. >> what is the distance from kabul? >> 15 or 20 miles. >> your line of defense is there are employees in kabul. >> there are two senior officers who have run programs. quex are the government employees or they a personal services contract? >> that would be pfc. >> personal services contractors. >> what is the status of the investigation? >> i do not know. i would have to direct you to oig. >> would you take that as a question -- would it be fair to

say that with all the structures and things in place which any of us -- would it be fair to say that your oversight system did not find this, the ig found it. none of this came to light ecause of states or inl's or oversight mechanisms. >> without a doubt. the oig hot line was a key factor. our people were raising concerns not only about how the progress of the project was going, but also some other concerns. >> that is with the hot line is there for. >> i am out of time. >> thank you. >> you are saving me time so i

will put myself in here. mr. buford has said no, he has never been there. we will clear that up. you can verify but it was or people who were telling me that. it is my understanding that the inl engineer that is the subject of this investigation was in fact one of your people. right? >> i would have to double check his exact -- >> the person who replaced him, one of the things you ask is what bob asked. are you a career person? please verify that. one of the questions that is in here, this is an interesting and i know the colonel will say

you are kind of harsh but this is what we ran into. i'm sure some of our experiences are solid. in this case going out there it was incredible it was explained to me and commission staff, you have these other controls, cut out the contract officers are you do not do anything unless you talk to me. cut out the financial people, do not do anything unless you talk to me. you had a contractor out there, pae, raising issues about quality and he wrote them a cease and desist letter. you cannot tell us anything about basarat. it is a controlled situation. you had no management or

financial controls. you allowed one person who was the top engineer to say everyone else butt out. it is a classic example that if you do not have more than one person on a contract that is making decisions and gathering performance data and the like, it is a prescription to failure. i know you are trying to recapture, program bu -- recapture this program. what bob asked for is the time line with actually the companies. also was explained was one of the questions, why did it take you almost one year to get the stop work when the issues started to come up? people were debating it and they said rather than jump in and look people in the eye and say what the heck is going on, they started a project in february to send to people in. something called ccc, inc. to

evaluate it and they took 60 or 90 days to say what they said was right and it was fraught with risk. it is important that you outline the controls that are there. it is important to say everything does not work out the way we intended. commissioner? >> thank you. i would follow up on that. i found it disturbing that the processes you lay out in your statement sound so good but they have not been applied in this situation. why is inl doing construction in the first place? i do not think this is something your background qualifies you for. do you care to enter guess as

to why you are doing instruction instead of the obo or your colleagues to the left and right who are more familiar and have more experience? >> i would be glad to answer that. when normally try to avoid doing construction. only because our funds in programs are not aimed -- are aimed at building human capacity. and skills. we're usually asked to do these projects when they are of a certain nature and have to be done fast or address a certain need. the switch to the central training center for the police. that is when they had close links with the rest of the police program. we have some resources meeting and we had people meeting on the ground and we could build those

kinds of things. in general, we try to avoid getting into heavy construction. also because it is expensive and our budget is not big relative to the others. >> one of the first lessons i learned in the acquisition world is when you wanted bad, you will get it bad. that has proven out in a number of examples where looking at. in an earlier life, i had the opportunity to look at a number of the construction projects in iraq that the u.s. attempted to undertake. what we found there was many of the problematic outcomes were based on problems with the requirements. there were not defined or there were overly ambitious. -- they were not defined or thery were overly ambitious.

there was a lack of locally suitable designs that we tried to build as buildings for an entirely different culture and population. we did not have sufficient oversight. i will take your word that you are learning organization. when i go through your statement, recognizing that afghanistan is not iraq. there are different conditions that we encountered. that is listed, those topics are clearly the same as we have seen in your statement. you have said that the corps executes projects that are required by our customers. your the ones -- you are the

ones who know what will be done. why haven't you taken a stronger role to tell someone that is not going to work the way you wanted to do? right.ess you're i will go back to the guidance that was put out in the fall. you highlighted -- >> fall 2010. >> yes. try to build a -- in a situation where kinetics will not make sense. >> or the soil will not -- >> if the geotech is such that you will require such a foundation, you probably will not want to do that. the guidance came out in the fall from ijc. i think we are at fault for not

raising our hands when we should have won requirements are defined, going back to the basic principles in construction. we were trying to stay out of the way of operations, we were not fully integrating with the operators on the ground and tried to please the customer firth and that what -- customer and i want to build this facility and go back and say we can do that when we know the kinetics are not right. we promised and delivered something in 12 months that we know it will take 18 months, that is over-promising. we need to make realistic promises and live up to those promises we have made. -- made to the customer. >> i will push on a couple more places. site preparation, you leave that to the contractor to determine. >> there have been some cases where the geotechnical services that have to be done and the

design for the foundation for building is part of the contract and the contractor is required to do that. we are required to -- there have been some cases where collapsible soils or in an area and the design did not take into account there was collapsible soil. that was corrected letter on but that is something we should have caught and we should have provided more oversight. >> why don't you? >> we are providing more oversight. >> why don't you take on the responsibility of doing that report? >> doing the prep work ourselves and doing the design ourselves. >> mm-hm. >> we could but there are cable design agencies out there, contractors who can do theth. they are -- he

capable. we owe our customers that. >> in your statement, you said they were not compatible with local customs and capacity, a different issue than the soil issue and the technical side prep issues. >> exactly. if you are in an area where to cool building, you have the choice of installing a complex air moving system, an hvac system, if you design the building different, they would be more main tenable in the repair parts would be more available and it would make sense to do that. >> you have learned those lessons. >> we have. >> you are continuing to contract out the responsibility for coming up with those things. >> i am mixing metaphors. the standard designs for a

barracks, we provide that to the contractor. this needs to be adapted to that site. there are differing soil conditions on a construction site that go into the design. adapting a site requires further engineering and we need quality assurance and oversight of. >> i will pick out your statement. the challenges in filling critical conditions -- positions. i appreciate there were new guidelines put out last fall in 2010. we have been at this construction in war zones for a lot more than six months. why can't you get critical positions filled? >> we're getting better at it. the last couple of years have been historic in terms of the corps of engineers workload, depending on how you normalize

the dollars. with base realignment and closure, the army's transformation has been a record workload in the states so demands in the states and the forward deployed theater were pretty substantial. probably a year or year-and-a- half ago, the workload in afghanistan added on to the workload in iraq at the time, had this working pretty hard. the with the situation has evolved, -- the way the situation has evolved, the pool of volunteers that we drawn to go over is more focused on afghanistan right now. with the increased workload that is coming, we're sending a team to do the planning. it is important to make sure that this is planned out. over 90 days we will grow 90

people. we have a much more robust pool of volunteers that we're able to draw from. just the nature of the workload. >> my time is up. i addressed my question to you but i would say at the state department and the air force and usaid, we are learning lessons but we keep making the same mistakes over and over, including getting enough people into the area to recognize that contract is such an important part of our overall mission. i am done. >> with your indulgence, could i interject a quick question as a follow-on to the earlier line of questioning to you about you understand the site selection is

bad for a project is not consonant with local culture but you do it and the customer finds out. substantial amount of funding come from customer phase? >> the size of our organization, the amount of people we put to a project comes from supervisory and administrative fees. >> we were speculating as to why you might not point this out when it is clear that these are going to be issues. does that have anything to do with the fact that you do not want to tick off the customer by telling them what the customer wants to do does not make sense? >> i do not think so. sites are selected based on best available information. >> you said in your response to

the comments that there were times when you knew that it would not make sense and nothing was said. why is that the case? >> back to the comment. this is a war zone. we're trying to -- if you are building a security point on the border at a crossing point, to provide security or provide security -- >> we know it is a war zone. let's take the issue of soil. whether the soil can sustain the building has nothing to do with the war zone. that would be true in peace time. it has been the case that there have been times when you have known that the site selected would not sustain the project. the project was billed nevertheless and millions of dollars wasted. why don't you explain that early on? >> it was the case that a building could not be built.

the designer that did the evaluation and did the design and execution of the construction to a short appropriate compaction was not done to the standard should have been. our quality assurance should have done that because the building could have been built there. if we had paid more attention to make sure that the soil design was correct and we were watching construction execution as closely as we should have to make sure compaction was done the way it should have. >> thank you. >> i have two pictures. are you aware of what that is? >> that is the gazi boys' school. that is the current school

training the kids that are part of the school. for background, the reason i want to bring this up is this was a un op partnership contract which i know you know. it got off to a bad start because of failed contract or drawings. the people that they had doing the drawings. they are a european firm that does not spend a lot of time in theater and there rely on others. we went out there and that was an interesting trip. it is the only time in afghanistan where i looked around intently as we, our security detail was taking us out because we were traveling down some rugged roads without anything around except low formed buildings. does the usaid have any hand in

identification of the specifications and design or do you turn it over to your partner? >> i am sure that we must. i do not really know exactly in the case of the gauzy -- gazi school. oiu do not suggest yuo are too long on the you sure you must. are you aware of what that glassed in area? >> it is an atrium. they had a two-story area.

they thought it would be great if they had an atrium were then put in plants. it is one-third of the area of this is you can see. three stories, open their air- conditioned and he did. it is an atrium. -- three stories, open air air- conditioned and heated. you had to do a lot of scrambling because there was not a lot of oversight. usaid -- it was a challenging car trip. you had to get another set of drawings. someone designed a facility. someone asked if it was handicap

accessible. their solution was they got a walkway that is wide as this table. it goes from the third floor, maybe football field length to the bottom and it is concrete. polished and all that and that is the emergency exit. i have friends, everyone has wheelchair bound france. if an american high school had that, it would be an incredible skateboard track but it would not be much for an emergency exit because people would be falling. i say that because when you walk in, it looks wonderful. there are a lot of schools that would die -- that is a bad

choice of words -- they would be appreciative to have a school like that. the bathroom facilities and the like, they are american standard great. the reason i put that up is that is what they are replacing. it needs replaced, super. how much is enough? could that be a goal? do you need an atrium in and outside the wire school? do know what the answer was? there are a few important people who have their kids there that go there and it is kind of fake prestigious school. we want to knock them dead with the school. to really have a great facility. that is wrong. that is why i bring the picture of. to give you a chance to look at

that and understand that is a better standard then we have in america. i would encourage you to get more pictures. i am not here to debate it as much as to show it. i come down to the point of my question. on large projects and complex projects, usaid is invaluable. this is not a knock on their mission. their track record is great. in complex or large construction projects, my question is, are you out of your leg? should you be having an organization such as colonel cassidy having -- doing that for you that do these large projects the to the very effectively? is it possible that you have

been asked to do something that is outside your capability? >> there's no question in my assessment and this is not a recent phenomenon that the capacity of usaid as many folks came to know the agency worldwide were hollowed out. our ability to undertake large construction projects, the size of staff was dramatically reduced and that happened over the course of a few decades. i believe that it is in the interests of the american people and the government that usaid have some capacities. we have work to build some of them in some of the areas that we work. i think that what is my concern when you talk about our capacity at the moment, one hand is large construction and do we have the capacity to do the sorts of specifications reviews that you talk about. the other hand is the oversight.

the oversight is something that we can, must, and are making greater progress on. we cannot have the situation like we had in 2007. we had three contracting officers in afghanistan. we have a live in today and we ordered a doubling of that number. there is no question that if we are going to do this work, we need to enhance our oversight capacity. >> thank you. commissioner? >> i will be brief. i wanted to start with this letter, this article that was read earlier. bout the symbion claim they could have done the work on this kandahar plant. the questions are a couple of

old. since there were doing the work presently, in kabul, it is unclear to me why the source of justification says there was no alternative. there could have been trouble with performance. since the bulk of the work was subcontracted, why was that alternative not pursued? >> symbion was the subcontractor on the project and they left the site and that issue of their performance was subject to the lawsuit. at the time that this decision was made, symbian was not under consideration. if you are asking whether there were under consideration as a sole source, what we had was an existing agreement with [unintelligible] that had changed their

performance. >> that leads to the second question. if that is the case, if that was the criteria for deciding to do the sole source award, i would have thought that would be reflected in the justification. there is no mention of that. can you account for that? we have a key factor in the decision. why was that not mentioned in the document? >> what was not mentioned was our belief in their capacity to perform positively. >> there was no justification for that other than the conclusion they could do it. if there was this dramatic improvement, don't you think you would list that? under these circumstances when it was clear it would be a controversial decision? >> i believe that from the report and our work that it had

become clear they were performing. i do not know if there was a requirement or thought that the past history would be represented. we found it important to analyze their capacity to undertake it and include that in our assessment. >> what is the present status of the full and open competition process? are you on track to do it? it will happen in two fiscal year 2011. when can we expect you have procedures in place? >> i will have to get back to you on what date we expect that process to be fully completed. we -- competed. ism six months or six years from now? >> i am sure it is somewhere between that. i will get back to my staff.

>> is it closer to six years? >> it is closer to six months. our reliance on a single soul source contract that was completed in 2006 was not acceptable practice going forward. we realize that and it is a priority for us to put these new competed mechanisms in place. i was interested in your testimony which was rather self congratulatory, i thought. not personally but, this sentence on page two. any time a problem is identified, we will involve the relevant law enforcement agencies. it is established that this problem at the prison was not the under -- the uncovering was not done by the staff but by the inspector general. >speaking of the ig's

investigation, we are trying to establish the time line. you say here that after that investigation your office suspended them and the suspensions took place on august 26 of last year. when did the oig completed suspension? i am trying to see how prompt that was. >> we were brief oed on may 10. may 10. >> yes. >> inl took action may 11 with regard to information received and regarding the individual who appeared to be involved. >> can you get this back to us with the time of the oig

investigation? >> yes. >> you terminated the corps involved. >> may 11. the process for the dealing with the contractors was a different time line. i give you some of the key dates there. >> please do. the initial action to alert the company that there was a problem was when a letter of concern was transmitted from our procurement executive -- the oversight body. very 10. >> february 10, 2010.

>> one was the investigation completed? >> i cannot speak for them. we were briefed in may. it suspended the company in february 2010? >> the individual in the company, they were issued a show cause order in september. as i understand the process for when the company was doing work to do with an adequate performance, there is a specific contractual procedure under our federal regulation. that was the first action. with the company. there were terminated in -- they were terminated in november and january 4 the other. >> i strongly commend you to

bring us back a chronology and try to remember what you said and correct it. you will need to corrected. i have done a chronology here and it includes because it was a 90 day contract with two engineers in february. that is what led to the may briefing. if anyone needs reminders, tim johnson and bill campbell. you are correct. suspension;''s letter was in august and he left and is in malaysia. this is an interesting story that people were sitting there

explaining this is what happened and look at me -- looking me in the eye. i am hearing chronology that does not make sense. if you send it to me, i have my notes and the people i talked to and maybe we can make sense out of it. i would commend you not to be taking to the bank those paper notes that are floating up there. >> we are happy to double check and make sure they are accurate. >> if you would. >> thank you. commissioner green. >> your impression. is the schedule for the increased afghan national security forces realistic from your perspective i am looking at the requirements >.

>> it is a lot of work to get done, so we are looking at ho government furnished materials, anything we can do to be able to do it faster to standard and that is part and parcel why we seaddled up this team. i cannot tell you for sure. >> 400 folks is a lot to billet . if it gets to that. did any of your contractors recommend significant efficiencies that can be put in place? that would reduce the

government's cost? >> they do. in the case of over in theater, we dialogue with our contractor all the time. we take a value engineering approach to what we design and we're looking for efficiencies and better effectiveness in what we are putting on the ground. we take the input if there is a better way of doing business. >> you do not have any examples. >> when i asked the contractor, that answer was we are watching the air conditioner filters rather than replacing them. which was not a lot of dough. nevertheless. usaid. >> how -- what dialogue has there been in light of

president karzai's pronouncement on security contractors? what dialogue has there been and handling that if that comes to fruition? >> the has been in intensive and almost constant series of engagements with all those parties since august, figuring out how to move forward with the implementation of the to agree -- decree. we are protecting our implementing partners and deliver on critical programs. we have made that transition. >> have any of your partners

indicated they may not remain in country of that occurs? >> partners have expressed concern about what would come next. they have made clear both from a personal security perspective as well as from an insurance perspective that the arrangements that are going to be put into place need to satisfy both of those concerns. there will not able to continue their efforts. >> you are prepared to deal with those insurance changes of necessary? >> we're going to work with the afghan government, our implementing partners to work on that. we still do not know what that outcome is in terms of the timeline is impossible to say ors will bemente affected. >> will be the power plant to death, whether it is diesel or gas or natural gas or donkeys.

what arrangements have you made, what coordination has been done with the afghan government to take over its operation and maintenance of that specific facility once the u.s. money runs out? >> we have done two things right now. we have a five yearlong contract to work with the afghans to increase their capacity building so they will be able to take over operation of the plant from a technical perspective. we have worked with them to establish their authority, responsible for managing the plant and selections. dramatically increasing the amount of money they're collecting payments for electricity on and they are paying the fuel costs out of that money. >> all of the fuel costs? >> smyth understanding is as of today, the fuel costs as it is

being operated is being paied for by the afghan government. confirm the understanding i have from a day of discussion and to part in -- i took part in. the corps has saved a large fraction on projects including power projects in the war zones by doing fixed price on these, not cost plus and full competition, not sole source. that happens to be true about what we're talking about today, namely diesel power plants in

kandahar city. the army corps is contracting for two 10 megawatt power plants and awarded this after competition, firm fixed price to $51 this past august for million. are we talking about -- i am looking for an order of magnitude on what you saved, what the low bid tends to be by going the way you go rather than the high-priced way. my experts on the staff who have job experience with the project bidding for in afghanistan tell me on something that would cost in this power generation area, $275 million as

a sole source cost plus when you are done, you might save one- third on if you went fixed-price and fully competed. on $275 million, you might save up words of $100 million. the low bids come in that way. what would you say on that? >> i would begin to figure out what the differences. when standing is in iraq, we had large contracts with large international firms that were cost-type projects because of the nebulous requirements and the security situation. we were able to define requirements that we found in that environment and the in ferment in afghanistan that you

can use fixed-price type contracts successfully. in allocating risk between the government and the executors. >> a couple of things. you said during the earlier testimony that the decision was made to omit a transition line across the valley. that was my and standing and i think you said the same. it became the kandahar power initiative. you were going to check on what was meant by the components that could potentially be issued. you have reasons not to do so. i am trying to understand what was being talked about by components. if the transmission line to

kandahar was not going to be built and if you knew you were going to have to hook up diesel plants in kandahar by different contractors because the army api.'s contract was with were those potential components to be put apart? >> i want to read the sentence. >> would you say which components were a part? >> it says "this package of activities is interlinked and must be implemented simultaneously." >> i thought you were going to read the sentence.

>> i want to introduce how we got to that sentence. "a number of contracts could be issued to conduct the work needed to implement kpi, but the risk factors and management considerations make this option unfeasible. >> what was the different components? >> there were six different components. >> which could be awarded? you do not do each of the six. the power plant and hydro electric plant. >> if you wanted to, you could break out any of the components. >> you have no idea? throughyou are going other parts, you discussed components winter four and five and six, one is the helmand province dam and the other is the local distribution center

system. aren't one through four one component and five and six another component? >> the components could be separated in different ways. >> could one through four and five and six be separable? >> two is a junction. your staff did not tell you? another two times. could they not potentially be separated? >> i said they could be separable. the decision was made they were could be so we could be successful in delivering the power this was intended to do. >> i got that point. louis berger decided that you

would not suspend the bar. they defrauded the u.s. government big time with known false billing. they put in doubt a system we have found throughout iraq and afghanistan. wouldn't you consider that as negative past performance, if they come along and they want to bid, when you evaluate their performance which is often 30% of n-word. >> i believe it can and should be. >> thank you. >> thank you. bob? >> i want to get at this issue that mr. green raised about private security contractors.

you are dependent on private security to do their job. is that accurate? >> if the decree was amended, that could have had a dramatic impact. there may have been a massive exodus of implementing partners of $8 out of the country if they could not have private security, right? >> that is correct. certain of the firms would not continue to operate in afghanistan without proper security measures. they would just pack up and go. the mission would come to an end without the necessary security. >> it affects some of our programs. some were done through partners that do not use security partners and some are through government entities. it would affect not all are -- all of our mission. >> these contractors, whether

they are u.s., third country for locals, do they significantly affect the life, will redeem, and property of persons -- can they affect the life, liberty and property of private persons? >> are they there to protect the life, liberty, it and property of persons? significantly affect the life, liberty, and property of private persons? >> of the people they're protecting? >> yes. >> they are performing a function where they

significantly affect the life, liberty, and property of private persons? does the course of their duties require the exercise of discretion? >> in engagements? >> just discretion. simple to get outside of d.c. -- take it outside of d.c. >> they make decisions about how to conduct themselves. >> would you say that it is in our public interest to develop afghanistan? it is in our public interest to stabilize afghanistan. >> to do that would require contractors implementing partners, government agencies and they require contractors. my conclusion would be their performance of duties is

intimately related to the public interest. is that a fair conclusion? >> i want to confirm that we agree with the karzai government that is phasing out the use of private security contractors is in our best interest. >> the idea is to have a government that could provide security. does this require the exercise of discretion and government authority or things that are related to the public interest? it is interesting that you said the contractors are doing that same thing. that isth the bottom line. they are doing things that people in a better world would be doing. >> i believe that it is in the

best interest of the u.s. and the afghan government that we move to phasing out private security contractors for provision of security. >> does the presence of armed troops support or undermine the legitimacy of the host government? the karzai government? >> i believe it has done both. behavior and presence has undermined that and in others it has allowed us to undertake critical work. >> your written statement is interesting. security is the challenge in the root cause of our problems. you have adopted methods to mitigate security risks. you say an assessment must be made to determine if the project area is safe and if it is not,

you send combat engineers. to perform the construction function. can you talk about the distinction? between where you can and cannot send people? facility, build a securit depending on what the facility is and what function it will perform, if it has to be there the that -- and the security situation is such that a contractor going in would not able to accomplish that, get materials there, be able to operate safely and security on that side to do it, -- site to do it, engineer and construction units in concert with a military operation could go in and secure the area and do the construction if it were within the hour with all of the unit's ability if there were equipped unable to do it. >> that is a change of

assessment. we will look at an area and determine if it is too hot, we must send in soldiers who are combatants. >> i do not know if that is a change in policy. that is a convocation in what was put out in guidelines. it gathers in one document a piece of doctrine that gives a logical step by step process in determining where and when you will construct something. it determines what method and means you will use. >> is it fair to say we are sending non-combatants into combat zones? securitye are issues. we have u.s. army corps of engineers employees who volunteer to go and provide

quality assurance oversight or engineering and design. >> what is their status? army corps civilians? >> i would consider them noncombatants. >> have we sent them into combat zones where it is unsafe? >> they are on the ground in afghanistan and we have deployed 10,000 core of engineers civilians. >> how many civilians have lost? -- have you lost? >> not contractors. i do not think we have lost any. we have lost three. these are c