that went back to the unelected bureaucrats at the national park service to spend it. that's the obama administration. he's the one who calls the shots there. it didn't save a cent. another case, a member offered an amendment to strike a secretary of state of transportation -- strike a variety of transportation projects in a few states. not one of these actions saved a dime. but made president obama happy because it went back to him. there is a solution. we have clearly demonstrated we made a point here. and the point is, number one, and no one can deny this. that the spend something the constitutional obligation and right of the -- of the senate and the house and killing earmarks doesn't save a dime, but can be the first stop in a real solution. and that gets back to my senate bill 3939. i'm very proud of that. and i would like to say that

there's a happy ending to this story mostly because of that senate bill. now, i'd like to take credit for that, but i'm not going to do it because i can't. i wasn't that smart. but there are eight great americans -- and put that chart up, if you would, luke. great american and conservative groups they represent, tom schatz, melanie sloan, selector of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, steve ellis, taxpayers for common sense, craig holman, public citizen, jim walsh, rich gold, many rouvelas, and dave wenhold, they authored -- leave that up there. these are -- let's put the -- the five principles that they offered. they offered the five principles of earmark reform. and i will list these. the chart shows us what they

are. starting at the top, they said what we need to do is have -- and i have to say this, senate bill 3939 -- i've got to write this down -- is -- will address all of these specifically. and unless -- a lot people in washington that go to a work making a lot of studies and they assume that we never do read these things or hear them. if you believe that, you're wrong. i listened and this is the result. the five principles of earmark reform. what we're saying here is we know -- it doesn't matter what you do in having a ban on earmarks. they're going to vote and support things in their state. everyone is. and i can aure you that's -- assure you that's going to happen. the senator from oregon, this is going to happen. the first one, to cut the cord between earmarks an campaign constitution, congress should limit earmarks. limiting total to no more than

$5thousand would help restore public confidence. this came from the eight great groups that really evaluated to what we can do to cleanup this system. senate bill 3939, that i just introduced, does exactly that. section two says, no earmark beneficiary shall make contributions aggregating more than $5,000 to any requesting candidate with respect to such earmark beneficiary. the second -- so it's done. the first is met. the second one, to eliminate a any -- to eliminate any connection between legislation and campaign contributions legislative staff should be barred from participating in fundraising activities. the attendance of legislative staff at fundraisers suggests a connection between the -- the campaign donations and earmarks. and so we handled that with

s. -- with senate bill 3939. it does just that. it limits under section 3, limits on staff attendance on limits of fundraisers except as provided under subsection b, an employee of a member of congress shall not attend a political fundraiser on behalf of a member of congress for whom they are employed. the exception would be a member of congress may designate one employee who shall not be subject to these restrictions. there are a lot of reasons. someone might have to have someone drive him or someone could be threats and they may need to have some security. i think people understand. the their thing they came up with, to increase transparency, congress should create a new database of all congressional earmarks. what they went on to say the information about lawmakers earmark request is scattered across hundreds of websites with differing levels of details. the funding levels for each

earmark award are listed in a chart at the end of each spending bill and while the data is technically available, it is virtually impossible to collect, understand and analyze all of the earmark information. congress should have a down loadable data base on the public -- website. well, my s. 3939, i just introduced an hour ago, does that, section 4 reads the secretary of the senate shall post on a public website of their respective houses a link to the earmark database maintained by the office of management an budget. done. the fourth concern is to ensure taxpayer money has been spent appropriately. the government accountability office should randomly audit earmarks. because oversight is essential to maintain integrity in the earmarking process, the government accountability office should develop and implement a system to audit the reports to

congress regularly on preparation and projects. this does this. and i'm going to read our section 7. this is a more difficult one. but it is airtight. not later than december 32, 2011, the controller general shall submit a report to congress that uses the o.m.b. database, one to randomly select a percentage of each of the programs and projects funded through earmarks in a proceeding fiscal year. two, to conduct an audit on each selected program or project reporting on the amount, purpose, term, requesting member, and the present state of completion of the program or project and, three, if the earmark contributes to an already existing program or project, the -- to provide a detailed accounting of how the earmark contributed to each program and project. that was the request. and -- and we came with the

section that -- that is -- i say is airtight in solving that problem. number five, to promote congressional responsibility, members should certify earmark recipients are qualified to handle the project and the last language that we have on that was that -- so that section 6 in a certification that the recipient is qualified to handle the project if applicable. you might say that's great. we resolve all of the problems that's out there. this was a combination of the interelects of all the people that i mentioned a while back so that they looked at all the problems that are there and how can we resolve those problems? one thing that was overlooked and so we have a second in -- in our senate bill 3939. we go one step further. it demands -- listen to this, mr. president. it demands the same transparency to obama bureaucratic earmarks as it does to senatorial ear marms. that kind of -- earmarks.

that's kind of need. in section 5, not later than july 1, 2011, the head of each department and agency of the federal government shall post on a public website the department of that -- of that department -- that's each department of government now -- or agency a link to a searchable database that lists each contract, grant, cooperative agreement and other expenditure made by the department or agency listing with respect to -- expenditure, the amount, purpose, term and office making such an expenditure. why is that necessary? i can remember sean hannity six months ago came out with a series one night where he talked about the 102 most egregious earmarks that were brought up. now, here's something that's really interesting about it. i was so excited when i saw these. i read them all here on the senate floor and i went over and described all 200 earmarks.

just look at some of the things that we're talking about here. these were -- yeah, sean hannity, $3.4 million to construct an echo passage for turtles. $450,000 to build 22 done the key toilets in a mark twain national forest. $300,000 for helicopter equipment to detect radioactive rabbit droppings. $500,000 for a grant to a researcher named in the climate-gate scandal. $325,000 to study the mating decisions of female kactus bugs. dcactuk -- cactus bugs. i said what do all of these have in common? what they have in common is not one was a congressional earmark. they were all earmarks that were put in there by the obama administration. and so here's the problem you have, if you ban congressional

earmarks, you're going to have more of this because as you -- as you restrict what congress can do, that same amount of money goes back into the administration whether it's the department of interior, the -- the corps of engineers, the e.p.a. or any of the rest of them. and consequently -- so is there any question why president obama embraced the ban on the earmarks? you know, because he wants the money to go with him. but s. 3939 is going to curb that and i think this could have a very happy ending because the five principles of earmark assembled by the end of the eight -- by the eight individuals i mentioned, this is an ingenious document. and now those who recognize -- and even the tea party people recognize that you have an obligation to their states, let me congratulate senator to be rand paul for stating where he told the people in kentucky that

he will work through the committee process to get things done for kentucky, but it has to be under a particular overall budget. i agree. i'm with him. i had the same conversation with mark rubio. they recognize that the president does not have the knowledge of each state's needs or other. so with these safeguards and the passage of 3939 it resolves the earmark dilemma and puts it to rest. the one good thing about the ban, we got to tackle the deficit. and as long as we continue as we did in the last two years to stand on the floor of this senate and go hour after hour after hour talking about the earmark problem, which is 1% of the total discretionary spending, we're not going to be able to address the real problem. and that the increase of the debt to $13.4 trillion, the largest increase in the of america. larger than any of the other increases all the way from george washington to george w. bush and saddling my 20 kids and

grandkids with $3 trillion of -- of -- of the -- of extra spending and so that's the problem that we have. and i would have to say as i learned in my successful battle against the cap-and-trade, truth eventually triumphs. winston churchill said that truth is and i couldn't vertible, ignorance may -- the end result would be that the senators will be able to -- to continue to work for the needs of the states as senator demint is doing and as i'm doing right now. but first all of the reforms necessary to clean up the process will occur and, secondly, we can limit president obama or any future president from claiming our cons -- from -- taking our constitutional rights by subjecting him to the same transparency.

i think this is very significant. and i just believe after all this talk all of these years, particularly in the last two years, that we can now -- are at the point where we can go ahead and satisfy everyone. if they want to ban earmarks, fine. but at the same time put the transparency in the system that is going to clean it up and i believe that's what's going to happen. i guess we can say we can have it both ways. it looks like we'll be able to do that. with that, i'll yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. a senator: mr. president, the senate has come back to a full-throated debate about the comparative benefits of the tax policies of george w. bush and barack obama.

we turn on our capable tv these days and hour after hour there is a great deal of analysis of which approach is better on one factor or another. mr. wyden: and i want to take just a few minutes today to point out that i think that debate misses the point. because either of those tax approaches of george w. bush or president obama in my view would anchor our country to an insanely complicated job killing, thoroughly discredited tax system. and i think what is important is that the senate begin work moving towards a tax system that can create, as i've put up here

and will walk the senate through, at least two million new jobs per year. the fact is, mr. president, in this discussion comparing the george w. bush policies and the policies of president obama, one side may end up winning, the other side goes away unhappy, but under either approach, mr. president, the taxpayers of this country will lose, will continue to lose as a consequence of this flawed and discredited tax system. for example, under either approach, mr. president, under the policy advanced by president obama or the ideas that george w. bush saw enacted into law, we

would still have, mr. president, 3.8 million people working the equivalent of full time, trying to comply with our tax law. under either of those approaches, that of president bush or president obama, we would still have americans spending 7.6 billion hours complying with tax law at the cost, mr. president, of of $200 billion a year. that's why i say the taxpayer loses under either of those approaches. how can you make the case to the american people, whether they live in illinois or oregon or anywhere else, that you want to anchor them to a system that

isn't doing enough to create jobs, certainly don't give us the opportunity to create two million new jobs, and on top of it, force 3.8 million people to work the equivalent of full time to comply, racking up 7.6 billion hours in the expense of $200 billion annually simply to comply. so, mr. president, the question is is there a better choice, an i would submit this afternoon that there is a far better choice, and it has bipartisan roots. the better choice, mr. president, is to pick up on the work that democrats and the late president reagan did in the 1980's when they came together. a chicagoan, as you will recall, was very involved, the late dan rostenkowski, and said the enemy

is not the other party. the challenge is to go after the scores and scores of special interest tax breaks that are tax expenditures or really tax earmarks, as i would call them, mr. president, that consume hundreds of billions of dollars and keep us lowering the rates for the middle class and small businesses and those who manufacture in the united states. and so i think the relevant comparison, mr. president, is not george w. bush against barack obama. the more relevant measure is what happened when democrats and ronald reagan worked together in the 1980's as opposed to what happened between 2001-2008, mr. president, when tax policy was partisan. and let me lay out for the senate those specific numbers.

when democrats and ronald reagan worked together to reform the tax code in the 1980's, payrolls expanded by 17.6% and the economy grew by 16 million jobs. by contrast, when tax policy was partisan, mr. president, between 2001-2008, there was 2.3% payroll expansion, just three million new jobs, and real median income fell by 5%. so why in the world would it make sense to go back to the tax policies where when you look at the numbers in terms of payroll expansion, new jobs and real median income, growth just wasn't up to what the people of illinois and the people of

oregon and across our land ought to expect. so i'm of the view, now that the people of this country have spoken, that they want to see this senate create more real good-paying jobs and fix problems, the first thing we ought to do is look at what worked, and we especially ought to look at it when it has bipartisan roots, as we saw in the 1980's with democrats and ronald reagan. i believe that the congress can now, picking up on what they did during that time, the congress can clean the clutter from the code, broaden the tax base and lower tax rates to give the people of this country a simpler and fairer tax. also, in the 1980's, by cutting

marginal income tax rates -- and again, this was democrats, some of the most stalwart democrats in the history of our party, dan rostenkowski, dick gephardt, stalwarts of the democratic party worked with ronald reagan to cut marginal income tax rates to create more jobs and more investment rather than just handing out tax preferences to special interest groups. now a quarter century later, mr. president, we find ourselves today with a tax system that you can only describe as a mess, a dysfunctional mess where even specialists, specialists in business and i.r.s. regional offices have trouble sorting out the implications of what one

provision or another would mean. so given this, given the fact that since the last time the congress moved in to drain the tax swamp, given the fact it's been a quarter century, senator gregg and i -- he, of course, is the ranking republican on the budget committee -- spent more than two years. our staffs week after week after week, seeing if we could come together and put forth a bipartisan tax reform bill. we have done that. i'm very pleased to be able to report this afternoon, mr. president, that the two chairs of the deficit reduction, commissionerrer skin -- commissioner erskin bowles and alan simpson -- said that a version of our proposal, a

version of our proposal should be one of the options considered by the commission and considered for the country to debate. so given that, i want to just take a few minutes and outline some of the key provisions that we pursued in our bill. it's s. 3018. i think we all know that anybody who is having trouble sleeping at night can just wade into a tax bill and you will conk out pretty quickly. but s. 3018, mr. president, san attempt to really pick up on some of the most important policy work done, in my view, by the united states senate, led by democrats and ronald reagan in the 1980's. what senator gregg and i do is end scores of preferences so as to be able to give tax breaks to

the vast majority of working families. instead of handing them out to a small number of narrow special interests, mr. president, who have incredibly talented lobbyists, who can spend their day outside the senate finance committee room, we take away those breaks and use that money to give real tax relief to millions of working class families. and mr. president, we take a special initiative to focus on job creation that will make us more competitive in tough global markets. and i want to take a minute to describe exactly how this works. i'm sure the president of the senate goes to a supermarket in illinois, as i have in oregon, and one of the first things

somebody will say when you start visiting about the work of congress, they'll say take away those tax breaks for the businesses that are doing business offshore. go get rid of those. and they'll say that to the distinguished senator from illinois and myself and everybody else. you hear it every single day, in any coffee shop, any grocery store where people are talking about government and politics. then, of course, we go out and visit with our companies, and the companies say, you know, we have got to have those tax breaks because america has the second highest rate in the world, and if we don't have those tax breaks for doing business overseas, we're going to lose out on jobs here in the united states because some of that work that our firm does

overseas helps create jobs here in america. well, we know from those conversations we have had in illinois and oregon that our blue-collar people don't buy that. they don't buy that for a second. they want to have the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas wiped out. so what i and senator gregg did -- and this lasted many, many months -- is we said to the companies how can we work with you to take away the tax breaks for doing business overseas so you can use those very same dollars to lower the tax rates for small businesses and manufacturers who operate in the united states and have dollars for tax relief for the middle class? as a result of that, we arrived at a policy, mr. president, that

takes away the tax breaks for doing business overseas, but we lowered the tax rate dramatically for manufacturers and small businesses who operate in the united states. our big businesses, they're called c corporations. most businesses, of course, pay taxes as individuals or partnerships or limited liability firms, but for our biggest companies, when they manufacture in illinois or oregon or anywhere else in the country in the united states, we lower their taxes from 35% to 24%, creating a dramatic new incentive for manufacturing and

business in the united states that can let our companies be more competitive in these tough global markets. we all understand that a firm in illinois or oregon isn't just competing against another state a few hundred miles away. we're competing against china and india, and i think this provision that senator gregg and i have laid out in our proposal, a modified version of that has been recommended by mr. bowles and mr. simpson, is one that can bring our country together, bring our parties together. senator gregg, a republican, myself, a democrat, worked for several years on this with business folks, with labor folks. when i talked to labor folks, and i have at length, about taking away the tax breaks for doing business overseas and using that so we can have a rebirth of american

manufacturing, they say that's the kind of tax cut for business i can be for. we've got to bring back manufacturing. manufacturing is not just a basic industry. it's a national security priority. and i think the approach senator gregg and i have proposed, a version of which the deficit commission has picked up on, is the path to go. the heritage foundation, mr. president, -- and i will confess that i don't quote the heritage foundation every single day here on the floor of the united states senate, although i have a great deal of respect for their professionalism. they said that the approach that senator gregg and i have produced will create two million new jobs per year. in fact, mr. president, they

said that it would create 2.3 million new jobs per year, increase disposable income for a family of four by $4,000 per year, and boost the real gross domestic product by an average of $298 billion per year. so the point really is, mr. president, at a time when we have been through a heated and certainly contentious election, i think there is an opportunity to move forward, and particularly on what has been a central concern of the american people, and that's creating more jobs, having an economic system that lets us compete in these tough global markets, and helping our people to get ahead,

helping all of our people to get ahead. if there is one theme, mr. president, in what democrats and ronald reagan did in the 1980's and what senator gregg and i seek to do now is let's have a tax policy that gives everybody a chance to get ahead. if you're somebody in illinois and oregon and you didn't have much in -- in the beginning of your life, we want policies that will give you a chance to get ahead. and if you have been fortunate enough through your hard work to be successful, we want policies that will make that possible as well. that was done when democrats and ronald reagan cooperated in the 1980's. and boy, what an unlikely group of people. president reagan, a rancher, a star in the movies, working with

senator bill bradley from new jersey. he's got a lot better jump shot than me, mr. president, but i also know the value of -- of teamwork. so there's another tall democrat on the senate finance committee who would like to work on bipartisan tax reform. we have an excellent chairman, chairman baucus and senator grassley, they have already had one hearing on this issue. there is a lot to work with here on this tax reform issue. and by the way, there is another group in addition to erskin bowles and alan simpson who have weighed in essentially behind the idea senator gregg and i are talking about. president obama had a tax reform commission that recently came

in. it was chaired by the distinguished paul volcker that made a very substantial case for simplifying the tax code to ease the burden on workers and families and businesses. senator gregg and i looked at the volcker commission proposals, ending the alternative minimum tax, increasing the standard deduction, consolidating the incentives for savings and retirement, allowing taxpayers to ask the i.r.s. to fill out their tax forms for them. those were all recommendations by president obama's commission, the volcker commission, that are part of the proposal that senator gregg and i have put together, s. 3018.

get rid of loopholes, get rid of the giveaways to the special interests, and you can keep down rates and provide tax relief to the vast majority of workers and families and businesses. so, mr. president, in closing, there is a recipe for economic growth that is available to the senate, a recipe for economic growth that has already been shown to work. what democrats and ronald reagan did in the 1980's proved that bipartisanship can create economic growth, help stimulate the creation of badly needed jobs and rein in the deficit.

so why in the world wouldn't we want to pass up the opportunity on a bipartisan basis to drain the tax slump? why would we pass up the opportunity to clean the tax house? do we really want to say -- and this is true, mr. president. this is really key to the discussion we're going to have all through this session. if we go with either the approach of george w. bush or barack obama, we will continue to see the full-time work of 3.8 million people doing 7.6 billion hours to comply with the tax law, at a cost of of $200 billion a year. wouldn't the people of illinois -- i know they certainly feel this way in oregon -- rather see

see $200 billion devoted to real progress in this country? improving our roads and bridges and transportation systems and creating a public education system that's going to let us get those high-skill, high-wage jobs and compete in these tough global markets. and you will have money left over to reduce the deficit, which, of course, is why all of this was attractive to erskin bowles and alan simpson, because they head up the deficit commission. and obviously, there is another big cost to all of this, this tax mess, and that's to the morale of our citizens and their sense of fairness. because this tax system is so insanely complicated, ordinary taxpayers make mistakes, they overpay their taxes, they

underpay their taxes, they get audited but they are very much aware that the sophisticated taxpayer can go out and employ a legion of lawyers and accountants, and if that doesn't work, go get a lobbyist to kind of play around with their loophole and avoid taxes. that's not fair and the ordinary taxpayer, you know, knows it. .even with their savings and hoe equity tapped out, we know that hard-working, low-income folks will pay their fair share, but they sure resent a tax system that rewards elaborate tricks. i'm of the view that the message from this election is for democrats and republicans to get down to work and making the tax code a good place to start.

i said to folks in oregon during the campaign, mr. president, i don't believe either party has a monopoly on good ideas. and i'm prepared to work with anybody here in the united states senate with a good idea for moving us forward, especially when we can create 2 million new jobs per year. and one of the reasons why i wanted to begin this special post-election, you know, session, is that i think on this tax issue, what's especially striking is when we're having this intensely partisan debate about how you go about keeping a discredited tax system, there's something out there that will produce more good-paying jobs and could be bipartisan. so the real work on taxes for

this special session, it seems to me, is to create a bridge to real tax reform, a bridge to tax reform that works. codethe code's so complicated t, mr. president, that the typical person can't even use the relief that's given to them. each spring the internal revenue service publishes something called the annual "oops list," and this is the list of the ten most common mistakes that taxpayers make when they're filing. that "oops list" released this march included president obama's making work pay tax credit, which was created to boost the economy and give working americans a credit worth up to $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. yet this year's "oops list"

reported that many of the people who worked in 2009 couldn't figure out how to claim the making work pay credit on their 1040 e-z form. that is not "e-z" enough. and, in fact, mr. president, if you and i walked the streets of illinois and oregon and asked anybody about the stimulus legislation, virtually nobody would think that there were hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax relief in that bi bill. they would say to the distinguished president of the senate, as they've said to me, "oh, that was a spending deal." you know, it was called the stimulus. there wasn't any tax relief in it. so the system was so complicat complicated, mr. president, that even with hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax relief in it, people couldn't sign up for it, people couldn't figure it out, and it makes the "oops

list" for the internal revenue service. mr. president, you have been patient this afternoon and i close simply by saying, i believe it's time to clean house like the congress did in the 1980's working with president reagan, purge this spider's web of tax breaks, kill the special interest goodies and hold down the rates so that everybody can get ahead. let the small businesses, as senator gregg and i advocate, expense all their equipment and inventory costs in a single ye year, freeing up capital so they can expand and create jobs. let's limit the dead-weight cost of taxes, as the heritage foundation inside their report,

indicating our bill would create 2 million new jobs. mr. president, our 1040 form is 27 lines long. 27 lines long. back when we started this push, one of the financial magazines, one of the best known magazines had some of their people for a typical taxpayer fill out their taxes with a form that was like ours. took them 40 minutes. think of what that's going to do to change america springtime when everybody's filing their returns in april. talk about family values. we could actually get people a little more time with their families rather than filling out all of these forms and turbo tax and everything else. mr. president, this is going to be an important session that begins today, and nobody is sure exactly how long it's going to

last, but what we know is there's going to be extensive discussion about taxes. and i just hope that our colleagues will zero in on the fact that under either of these approaches that's being discussed -- that of george w. bush or that of barack obama -- either of them will anchor this country to a grotesquely complicated, job-killing discredited tax system. we can do better. mr. president, we know we can do better, because in the 1980's, with leadership from a republican president and democrats in congress, we did better. it created millions of new jobs. we can do it again. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call, senator. mr. wyden: i would ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. j. res. 40 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s.j. res. 40 joint resolution marking the day for the convening of the first session of the 112th congress. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the stkwroeupbt resolution be read -- joint resolution be read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the

table. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 674 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 674 to constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the 111th congress or until their successors are chosen. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate impeachment committee be permitted to file their report with respect to the impeachment of judge horteas not withstanding impeachment of the senate between --

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed for the following treaty on november 15, 2010, by the president of the united states: protocol amending tax amendment with luxembourg, treaty document 11-8. i ask that the treat be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the committee on foreign relations and ordered to be print and that the president's message be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: as in skaoufr session, i ask unanimous consent that the injunction secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the senate on november 15, 2010, by the president of the united states. the tax convention with hungary treaty document number 111-7. i further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the committee on foreign relations and ordered to be print and that the president's message be printed

in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, i understand appointments were made during adjournment of the senate, and i ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that mr. russell sloan, a fellow in the office of senator pryor, be granted floor privileges for the week of november 15-november 19, 2010. promise without objection, so ordered. wide -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, november 17. that following the prayer and the pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day and following any leader remarks the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senator harkin controlling 15 minutes, senator

dodd controlling 15 minutes, and senator mikulski controlling 5 minutes of the majority taoeufplt at 11:00 a.m. the senate proceed to the consideration of the mode to proceed to -- of the motion to proceed and the senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: mr. president, senators should expect the first vote of the day to begin at approximately 11:00 a.m. that will be the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the promoting natural gas and electric vehicle legislation. if cloture is not invoked, the senate would proceed immediately to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to s. 3772, the paycheck fairness bill. if cloture is again not invoked, there will be a third cloture vote on the motion to proceed to s. 510, the food safety bill.

therefore, senators should expect up to three roll call votes to begin around 11:00 a.m. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn, mr. president, under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

this is live coverage on c-spa c-span2. >> it's often put to is the al qaeda and taliban are being grouped together when it's well known that they are very different, different beings. the government justifies its intervention in afghanistan, they were there, al qaeda would return to afghanistan and pose a threat to national security. but a number of our witnesses have disagreed with this premise. what evidence have you got to suggest al qaeda, not taliban, al qaeda will return to afghanistan? >> it's impossible to have direct evidence of something that would happen in a situation. but we do have the experience of

what happened before, before 2001, when most of afghanistan was an up and -- ungoverned state or taliban governed state. we know al qaeda were able to set up their training camps and bases there. now based on that experience, it must be a reasonable suspicion that the same thing what happened again, particularly where al qaeda felt pressure in other areas. and so it would be a rash of service who said he knew this would not happen. and it is fair to set any conditions that president karzai has set out for political settlement in afghanistan, that taliban and others associated with them should renounce al qaeda and renounce violence. so i think that is the line of reasoning. >> he said he didn't think they would return.

>> well, under conditions he said, and he said that condition for a good reason. >> could you answer the question regards to military situation, the question that was posed on wednesday last week, and that is successful counterinsurgency operations in the past, have suggested that not one of the preconditions, control of the borders, high density levels, credible government, support the majority of the population exist in afghanistan. so why do you think the military in particular is so optimistic they can achieve a successful outcome? doesn't beg for more assessment? >> it remains in any realistic assessment phenomenally difficult task. the task we're engaged in in

afghanistan. some of the fact is you quite rightly described, nevertheless, all of those factors are being addressed at one way or another. the build up of the afghan national security forces is very substantial, as you know, and as you will have seen on your visit to afghanistan. the afghan national army is not 144,000, 10,000 ahead of where they were meant to be at the time. the afghan national police is stronger than was anticipated now. the attrition rate in terms of people leaving these sources is diminishing. the legitimacy of government and operation of government and a province like helmand seems more widely accepted that it was a year ago, or two years ago. so progress is being made in many of these parameters. even cooperation of the countries, the afghanistan-pakistan transit trade agreement working with regional neighbors is an area of

greater strength of the afghan government than before. so they all remained very difficult, every parameter remains very difficult. but i think it's fair to argue that there in case, progress is being made in all of these ways. so success remains very difficult. in afghanistan, but it is by no means impossible. >> one of the things that has played our presence in afghanistan is the over optimistic assessments since our progress there. we are all please obviously the more realistic situation there now, although some of us need to be more realistic. but does this suggest in the path of the military, the driving strategy, as opposed to politicians?

>> well, to take several parts of that, because i agree, sometimes it hasn't been an overoptimistic effect before we are trying to avoid that, learning the lessons was happened in the past. i go to the first of our quarterly review. it was in the week where your committee was visiting afghanistan, and i apologize for that, because of the pending review of the previous week and my visit in the middle east the following week. i will try to capture in the caching next time, the course of the review. but i hope, i think it was regarded by the house, a frank assessment of where we are and not so stating what is being achieved by showing the progress as we made in several areas, and much more needed to be done, for instance, in the area of corruption and governance. and we'll carry on in that vein with our assessment. not encouraging false optimism, but not being blind to good news either. because there are those, there

are often more successes to talk about than featured daily in our media. so i think it's important, hopefully we are getting that right, getting realistic in our assessment. what were the military driving -- you may need to wreck that -- you have directed it to one of the officials who served in the last government, but to members of the last government more than to the current government, it's very important on an issue like this that military and political leaders work well together. that political decisions are well informed by military assessments, otherwise of course politicians can make rash decisions without sufficient military awareness. but i think now the way in the u.k., we have our own national security council, the chief of defense staff, heads of intelligence agencies sitting together on this and other subjects, on a very regular

basis. that we have the correct balance and have decisions are made. >> can we just explore very briefly the extent to which perhaps counterinsurgency operations are undermining our political goals? will happen is half some military, politicians must provide -- a negotiated settlement i think, and here the military seem to be targeting taliban leaders as the decapitation policy in place. do you think that is constructive for a negotiation settlement? and what extent can the u.k. actually influenced the u.s. in its approach to the taliban in the sense that these publicly they have been reluctant to negotiate?

>> so the u.k. can in the passionate influence the u.s. the prime minister goes to great deal. i'm heading to the united states where today. this is top of the list of my topics to discuss with secretary clinton. and we have a multitude of contacts at official level and between our intelligence agencies, and so on. but i do very much agree that it is important to keep the taliban under maximum military pressure, and, indeed, to intensify the pressure in the coming months if we are to come to a negotiated political settlement, ultimately. so i would, in fact, set the premise of a policy of your question, that conducting combat operations against the taliban reduce, reduces the chances of a political settlement. i think military success and intensified military pressure is an important component of bringing about a settlement.

the taliban should expect intensified military pressure, and even greater pressure on them in the coming months in the out of a political settlement. >> and finally, do you accept that when a negotiated settlement takes part and takes hold, it will have to obviously reflect reality on the ground, on negotiations with taliban, negotiations with regional warlords, et cetera, but is it not possible to have a negotiated settlement and still retain the ability to take on al qaeda perhaps using special forces, should they ever returned? what i'm trying to get to hear is, splitting time between the taliban and al qaeda. there's no doubt that reconciliation, negotiated settle as he take place with the taliban. that doesn't mean we have to

make peace with al qaeda. and kelly not engineer, not be on the demand, where but at the end of the day we retain the military capacity to take on al qaeda, should they ever returned, while progressing the negotiation settlement with the taliban and order to engineer some sort of success? >> well, yes, i would hope that is possible. it's highly unlikely, it's possible in the foreseeable future to negotiate peace with al qaeda. that would be fundamentally against the believes of al qaeda. it may be possible to do so with taliban, or with the parts of the taliban. we don't know whether that is possible. but it is certainly desirable under the right conditions. and now one of the conditions i refer to are your that president karzai has set alongside respecting a constitutional framework and renouncing violence, is cutting ties with

al qaeda. so yes, such a settlement would require a distinction to be made between those who are reconciled and those who are committed to al qaeda. >> fonseca, if i may. i think one factor when looking at the prospects that you gave is the level of pipe support for the taliban which is around 10%. so it varies. in different parts of the country. i think the other thing we need to consider is that parts of the insurgency have active links with al qaeda now, not necessarily inside afghanistan, but certainly links emanating from pakistan. and if one looks at president karzai's conditions about renouncing links with al qaeda, i think what also would love to see security council resolutions and suffice of 9/11 that you'll find the taliban getting up al qaeda, a step the taliban didn't take. so that the real questions about

to what extent what is taliban assurances that would be capable of being carried out? >> thank you. >> the nature of this insurgency, we understood from what we were were talking, there are three different insurgencies in the haqqani network, and there is the pakistani-based palestinian. maybe there are more. perhaps. is it your strategy to get all three of those components into a political process, or are you trying to split them and get some of them on the basis of that, and at least reduce the clash of the conflicts going on? >> well, we're trying to create the conditions for a -- the military campaign is a very important part of that for a reason i was referring to earlier. if not within our control who wants to enter into a

settlement. whether all of those groups and for the groups or any of those groups who wish to do so. that is up to them to decide whether they wish to be part of that settlement. so we might wish for however many groups to be enrolled, but, so we will see how the circumstances develop. >> finally, in your earlier answer, he referred to the growing training of the support of the afghan national security forces, either virtually none sovereign posturings in those agencies and that the only pashtuns are from the eastern and north of the countryspeak with a remains the case that the southern pashtuns are way underrepresented in the national security forces. a few percentage i think of afghan army, 3%, although more than 40% of the army would be

pashtuns of other origins. so when you say the only other pashtuns are from other areas, you talk about -- yes, that remains a weakness. it's an important one to address over time, and, but it has to be seen against the context of the very rapid buildup of the afghan national security force is, and a huge in improvement in the training of officers that we've seen over the last year. >> secretary, do we have a contingency plan if we get through to 2015, we -- how we going to contain and manage the situation in 2015 if the counterinsurgency strategy doesn't work? >> well, of course we're working very hard to make sure it does work, and remember that a key component of this is the forces

that we're talking about. that the afghan national security force is will be over 300,000 strong by the end of next year. nevermind by 2014. the training of officers in the afghan national army is up to 700% over the last year. now, this is a very important consideration. this is an army becoming much larger than ours. that i think is crucial, that buildup is crucial to the afghanistan, whatever happens, so that afghans can lead and then take their own security operations from 2014, in line with president karzai's objective, a respective of arriving at a political settlement. so you can think of that as the

next line of defense after international thought it spent on train on train on train on train -- [inaudible] >> well, we made it very clear statement perhaps not being involved in combat operations in 2015, although that does not preclude the manner in a training role, for instance. but yes, i think the long-term outlook, if they were to be no political settlement, is the afghan national security forces become large enough to be able to hold their own in afghanistan. that does not mean there would be a peaceful afghanistan. it does neither would be an afghanistan where the government would run wide enough for the government to be able to resist being overthrown by force.

>> will we be asking from the british military, that troop numbers, 2013, in 2014 -- [inaudible] >> also in the national security council, of course. that is now the core of an which such matters are decided. so yes, the prime minister will certainly, secretary of defense will set forward the plan for the next few years. it's quite hard to foresee at this point the level of resources and the nature of activities regarding 2013-2014. of course, it is clear that we should have a larger and larger training role, and as you know, the defense secretary has announced movement of more than 300 personnel into a training role just in the last eight months. but yes, the security council will examine the plans for our deployment overtime.

>> if i may, that is on the agenda of the national security council over the next few months. and troops will be linked obviously. >> can we then just get exactly what the 2015 deadline is? what is a? when is it? exactly -- >> the prime minister and i have stated it, by 2015, we will not be engaged in afghanistan in combat operations, or in anything like the numbers that we have there today. and as i was saying to mr. stewart, does not mean that we will not be there in other forms in training wrote and so on, but i don't want anyone to underestimate the clarity, or view the clarity of it. and the prime minister said that very clearly in meeting. and that is what we will stick

to. >> when? 2015? that is 12 months longer. there's a general election in may 2015, isn't it a? >> i don't think -- >> january 2015? >> i don't think that's correct to try and hone in on the actual day in 2015, particularly since we're sitting here in novembe november 2010. this is quite a long way away. in fact, it is further in the future as you all well know that our whole operation and how month are in the past. so it is a long time into the future. but we don't anticipate in the new future setting a particular month or week. >> who took the decision? >> the decision is taken by ministers and the national security council in the cabinet led by the prime minister. >> taken in the national security council speak was taken by the prime minister in consultation.

[inaudible] >> yes. >> who were you consulting? >> a four he made his announcement. [inaudible] >> i'm sure he was consulted, but i can't sure when everyone was consulted. >> look, i mean, we are there as part of a coalition force with very significant part. and we always try to be good partners, have a, as a country in the coalition, activities and international affairs. no conceivable possibility that that will be changed, let's say, in a nato discussion takes place about the need to change because deadlines are not being met. american request, because we simply can't get in position. or the afghan national army, afghan national security forces are capable of standing up on their own. no conceivable way that that is

going to be ordered. it's set. it's finished. that's it. it's a deadline. we will not be changing any circumstances. >> it won't be changed at the prime minister has been very clear about that. it is a change of politics. there are several changes. we have double operations for the troops. redeploy away from certain areas of helmand to concentrate on other areas. you know, several changes in policy on afghanistan, and yes, this is one of the. and people can argue advantages and disadvantages to a. mr. ban has done that as well on the floor of the house. we will make the most of the advantages of this policy. it is clear to all concerned what our intentions are, what we're going to do by 2015, to our allies, to the afghan government, and we don't want anybody to be any doubt about that. there are other allies in nato who also stated specific timing so the deployment of their

forces. we will buy that had been in helmand for most long, 50% longer than the entire second world war, and we feel it right to say that by then we will not be engaged in combat operations. >> this is a big change of policy, isn't it? [inaudible] we were halfway out before the change of government. this is the change, really. >> is an important change and is a change we will stick to. >> why did we think that was helpful? we did it to put pressure on the karzai government, but didn't take the pressure off the taliban, off the insurgents? >> i think insurgents will find in line with our earlier discussion that they are under intense pressure over the coming months. there is no relaxation in the british or coalition military. in fact, since it's only

recently as you know, really all the forces of the commanders have been available in afghanistan and that pressure will intensify over the coming months. and even over the coming years when that is added to the increasing role of the afghan there should -- afghan national security forces that they are quite wrong to conclude that anybody can relax, that everybody on the other side can relax in any way, because we've made an announcement about 2015. a it does mean with absolute clarity for the afghan government that they know that is the length of our combat commitment. our allies know that, too. and there are advantages to that, as well as of course the arguments against it that others have put. >> i was ever going to say that the summit takes place later this week will endorse the 2014 target date for transition and all of nato's efforts will go

into making sure that happens. >> i mean, that's been known for quite some time. other nations, the dutch, canadians are leaving in response, there was some indication that would have to be a plan between now and 2015. how are we going to do this, the withdrawal of other nations? there are relative means. the dutch in the canadian our very, very significant contributors. >> yes. and i certainly hope some of the countries will be able to sustain some substantial training growth. >> we've been discussing that with them, and it would be highly desirable, given the extent of canada's cod division

over the last few years, if they are able to do that. i think that would be very welcome. we have been discussing that with the canadian government. there are, as you say, a growing number of nations overall, although not all make military country vision, since there are at the moment 48 contributing nations, there are more at the moment than there have ever been. i thought that can easily be overlooked. but in the cases of canada and the netherlands, a good deal about their notice, intention. but from an operational point of view, given the increase of the forces from the united states and seven other countries, the operational gaps will be filled. there is no doubt about that. >> foreign secretary, you've touched on the fact there is a lack of trade in afghanistan, something that was quite apparent in both the police and army, the afghan army, the quality of training is at a time

the people will ask a train, and others, was a very of small amount of time. can you explain why that's the case? and secondly, it would seem that a way of change between 22014 and 2015, not just, but the quality of training, because when we talked, for example, the pakistani generals, they said they were quite impressive, though as to what we're doing is creating can improper, not troops because of a small amount of time that has been given to the trainers and troops. unit, many of the afghan police were being returned, where had no idea of the job they intended to do. their pay at one stage was so poor that it was below the living wage which encouraged

theft and extortion. can you just explain to us about the policy now, why we spend billions of pounds that we haven't got such good records in training? >> it remains a huge challenge, i mean, you are quite right to highlight a. i don't want to say in any way that this is an easy process, although we achieved our objectives on training. there are improvements have taken place in recent time. [inaudible] [bell ringing] >> one of those is the pay of the afghan national is being increased and improved. your quite right on one of the difficult has been, that is the more attractive for people to do

other things. afghan national police souders has been increase. training programs has been improved. and recruitments than has generally exceeded the target. and i mentioned briefly the attrition rates before. the average attrition rate has gone down to 1.4% a month in the case of the afghan national police, which is is a series improvement of how it was in past years. there is also increased attention being given to the training of noncommissioned officers and officers, which, of course, are key to the quality and to the leadership that is necessary. so people are not in the phrase that you have given. i mentioned some of the figures, were given more in increase of the ncos in the afghan is up 70% since november of last year,

and officers of 175%. so that will lead over time to policy, any other important thing that is happening is a partnering of afghan national with british troops. most of them were, british troops going forward is in partnership with the afghan national security forces. i pointed out in my review statement to the house three weeks ago how the operations conducted recently have been led by the afghan forces, for the first time in a very significant way. and so i think as you have all sides of improvement. there is a level of training, the same level you could get in a european or american army, well, no, it is because your the emphasis is on driving as rapidly as possible. but you can see from the figures on giving, the quality of training, the quality of training, and the way in which the troops and afghan forces

then gain experience alongside nato troops, all gathering pace in improving. >> one thing about afghan troops are taking the lead in operations in around kandahar, and that is quite successful. >> 50% of the operations have been led by the afghan national forces themselves. >> just to make the point, foreign secretary, since we've been there, people responsible for the training and troops in afghan were complaining bitterly about the lack of resources even now as we speak. can i just moved onto, talk about the police, the government itself. one of the important things of the afghan people have to face in own government, we heard an awful lot about corruption, about malpractices of the afghan government. what have we been doing, what can we do in the future that will build on faith in their own, the afghan people in their

own government? >> this is one of the areas where much more progress needs to be made. by the way, i wasn't i doing in my career and that everything was fine of trading that the problem was passionate every major huge challenge that i take nothing away from -- [bell ringing] [inaudible] >> your quite right to say that training requires increase exponential attention. but on governments, on corruption, a greater effort needs to be made. that some progress is being made, some of the commitments into the time of the kabul conference in july, our being met. and we've seen over the last few months some of the afghan ministers and declare their assets in public. we have seen a great improvement

and transparetransparency. for instance, in the military of mine, more than 100 new contracts were placed openly on the internet for people to examine. that is the kind of practice which may help to combat corruption in the future. so certainly some progress is being made. nevertheless, we have seen anything surrounding the kabul bank and other institutions, very depressing news. and so we do call on the government of afghanistan to make greater progress in this area, and to continue to try to win the support of domestic and international opinion. >> i heard your statement in the house of commons as i was present, and i thought a very franklin. you touched on good governance and again now. what precisely do we mean by good governance?

how can -- how do you feel it is succeeding in getting good governance? for instance, being respect for human rights, respect for women's rights? and i would hope maybe that's topics you might raise with secretary of state clinton if you see her, because obviously she is very concerned. what does good government mean to you? >> that's like a wide philosophical question, but to begin with in afghanistan, it means the basic things that we take for granted here like government being present at all. and here i think we can see some of the progress that is being made. there are 10 district governors installed in helmand, for instance, compared to only five in europe who are able to operate. there are 26 afghan ministries,

now represent in lush car. so government is more present and certainly very difficult areas of the country like element that was a year or two ago. i think a second requirement is in the area we have just been addressing of people being able to have confidence. that it is not corrupt, that works in the interest of the people. there is much more to do, afghanistan remains them to the bottom of the scale on international for levels of corruption. and has improved a little bit. i think on the world index for doing business, for ease of doing business. it is improved to 160th in the world. instead of 168th. [laughter] it has moved in the right direction. it is moving in the same way and

corruption as well. so we see a little bit of progress there. and then it means those other things that you're talking about, i've yes, respect for minorities, respect for human rights, including women's rights. and as you know, quite a lot has been done in that it the united kingdom strongly encourages that and has funded projects which do encourage women's participation in afghan society and politics that they may be an answer to one of your questions a couple weeks ago that i pointed out, the improved participation of women in the peace jerker, in june, but there's also been an increase participation by women in the recent parliamentary elections. and i think it's very important that we continue to encourage these things so that it becomes part of the fabric of afghan society. before and during the time a clinical summit is created.

>> you may be aware of the age of foundation poll which measures a number of things. were the things that measures is the conference of the afghan people in their government. this has got out 5% over five years. it's only 47%, but the trend is upward. >> probably more than many governments in the world. [laughter] >> just returning to questions, just for clarification. 2015 deadline, that applies to secretary forces as well, all combat troops speak with we don't have a comment as a former defense secretary knows. >> so, it's not clear as to whether or not it applies to special forces speak what's on the giving you an edge that i may give you a clear and deliberately. [inaudible] >> to the united states is the most important power in

coalition, but there are lots of reports about internal divisions within the u.s. administration. and we heard in private, many places, people saying, and it's also in the record publicly about what this is referred to incoherent and contradictory decisions within the u.s. administration. how committed it the u.s. to reconciliation as a strategy speak with the united states is committed to reconciliation. and they're very much also committed, as we are, as i answer to are the questions, to intensify the military pressure on the taliban. those things are not mutually opposed goals for the reasons i get our gear. they go together, the chances of reconciliation are increase by an effective military campaign. is there often a debate within the u.s. government about this or other foreign policy issues? yes, there is a.

of course, the united states is the kind of society and governmental system in which any debate about foreign policy often serves in public that you would expect that are such as important as this to always have unanimous agreement in advance of any discussion. but the united states is in favor of the process of reintegration and reconciliation. >> but is the u.s. in favor of the same approach of this government, which seems to be we should be working on reconciliation now? as opposed to a few which seems to be quite strong held by some in the u.s., that you need to change the balance before you go down that road. >> well, sometimes this is an academic argument, of course. because it's not possible to commend the timing of a political settlement. that will be important for the military effort to continue and to intensify, i believe to make that settlement possible. nevertheless, i would say, to answer your question, there is a

disagreement here between the leadership of the u.s. and u.k. governments. the prime minister and the president discussed such issues regularly, and they are in strong a cord about it. and we do discuss it, intend to discuss it privately rather than through giving speeches directed at each other, which i think is the right way for close allies to deal with it. but we are not engaged in an argument about this at the moment. >> would you agree that the u.s. needs to be directly involved in discussions with the taliban, in order to get a solution to this situation? >> this has got to be an afghan led process. there is no doubt about that. an afghan led process will bring reconciliation in afghanistan. we facilitate that process. we think it is appropriate. >> you mean the u.k.?

>> i mean the u.k., but unisys also has agreed to the policy and is in the same position. but it has to be, it has to be an afghan-led process. >> are they facilitating as well just we? >> they agree with our policy. >> that was not my question. >> he has said -- president karzai contact and provide practical assistance, and that in clue to the u.s. as well as other isaf members that. >> i that we're going to get a better answer than that. [inaudible] >> no, i guess you it's the same policy as we have. >> but insurance of contacts and what's being done to try to contact element within the insurgency of the taliban, is it the case that the u.s. is actively engaged in that process at this time? >> i think, i know we will have a private session later, mr.

chairman -- [inaudible] >> i don't think it is right to go into public about any operational details of these matters. >> foreign secretary, i would like to ask you about the hearts and minds of the afghan people. there's like 10% support. [inaudible] the society has stated it is one of a series things of afghanistan in many respects, the united kingdom and its allies are losing the war -- is about to? spent i think we are to be able to do better.

in the coming months and years, and communication, and the strategic communication of what our objectives are, how we are achieving them, how the nation's of isaf and, indeed, the afghan government are working together. i think it has been one of the weak areas in recent years, and i think it needs further attention. we are giving attention to that end the national security council, from the uk's point of view. i recently raised it with the nato secretary-general, something that requires better international coordination as well. so yes, it is a weak area, and conflict indications is a vital consideration. both of our own countries, and of the country where that conflict is taking place. so i think there is room for improvement. now, that's not to say that quite a bit has been achieved. as in so many of these fields

there remains enormous challenges, but some progress has been made. particularly in the creation of a more vibrant media in afghanistan and the axis of in afghanistan to news outlets in a variety of sources of information, that they have at their disposal. all of those things have improved, but yes, i think more attention is needed in this area. you're quite right to raise this question. the first part, i think, go back to the first part -- >> you said support for the taliban in afghanistan was 10%. i was interested at all if you thought that it was increasing, decreasing, or stable, 10%? >> i don't know whether we have any figures on that. polling is not an exact time in --'s. we don't have a poll which shows is whether it has gone up or down in certain areas.

and in some areas it is high than 10% and a some areas -- [inaudible] >> how can you say it's 10%? is increasing? are we losing the war on hearts and minds? as a good example, afghans think about we are going -- [inaudible] >> there wasn't a poll. there has been very service, but let's think of other ways of, if you look at how many, of course, the area which were privately concerned with, where british troops are concerned, in -- hundreds of people make their ways to the district center every day up from a trickle previously. in other areas, over 800 locals,

a few months earlier, that would've been impossible. so these are not polls, but their indications of how life on the ground can change come and winning over people. still again, an enormous challenge in helmand. but considering that we have 135,000 children enrolled in schools across the province, which is a 250% increase on last year, it indicators like that is some indication of how normal life has changed for the people on the ground. and that may then give some indication of whether they have confidence in what is happening. >> it seems to me that this is international attention. through diplomatic means, the diplomats in afghanistan,

short-term, for any bit period of smalltime, they are oddly very shielded from whatever the afghan people, how can it be expected to win the hearts and minds from the taliban and local villages of that country speak as we work a lot of several different levels, diplomats in kabul are engaged in making sure that media throughout the country understand what we are doing. but, of course, i think it would be wrong to say that diplomats and others, the people who work for instance, in provincial reconstruction team, are working based in flash car, are working daily at local and -- lashkar gah, daily and local problem. deal with locals and other

elders about every issue concerning local society and the services provided. and that is a fundamental part of winning over those hearts and minds. karen, do you want to add the details of that work. >> certainly some of our diplomats and colleagues in the stabilization unit go out and facilitate local shura helping to find transfer, help in getting people together, if ask him helping people to run a meeting. and they are out there everyday in places like lashkar gah. one of the areas that we find if you like the local authority really has to compete with the taliban is in the area of local justice. the taliban have these motorcycle course that they provide justice very quickly. so a lot of our records and those of others goes into helping the local community stand up, which might think up of as traditional justice so that people can get decisions quickly. people suffer from intimidation

from the taliban. when asked people what their main concern is, security comes out as one of, the major concern. so that's what we're engaged in. is trying to provide security for local areas so that they can go about their normal business. for example, in kandahar major general nick carter, his team were involved in building houses and offices for the district governor so that they could do their business, protected from intimidation. and the foreign secretary was saying, we can increase in the number of people coming to the district governor, the provinciaprovincial government rather than the local warlords to help. >> we often hear from diplomats, who are only there for a short period of time, didn't even know the language. [inaudible] >> many of the diplomatic corps don't know the language.

>> well, it an ideal world everyone would speak the local language, but that would require being able to repair hundreds of diplomats long in advance. of course, these are difficult postings where people serve usually for a year in kabul, with the option of another year, or six months in lashkar gah with an option of another six months. they are difficult hardship posting so it is difficult to turn over the personnel pretty regulate. so they have a disadvantage with new people that have to learn local culture and get to know the local leaders. i think you can see that is the only practical way in which we could do it spent excuse me, we do have a couple of speakers in each place in lashkar gah and in kabul, and we have some very good locals who are bilingual. >> thank you. >> general caldwell in his

presentation, commanding the training, points out that he's already quoted 250 times short, we'll be five on a traders sure that within a year we will be 900 trainers sure. the united states is looking for more support and training. at the same time,. [inaudible] can we not be looking adequate opportunity here to shift more and more towards training? >> we have done so, of course, already, the defense secretary mentioned order, the defense defense secretary sent well over 320 more u.k. personal with the devoted entirely to training. and it doesn't matter, this will require a lot more resources by the improvements made over the last year. i think it's an important topic for a nato summit that is coming up at the end of this week.

of course, the prime minister, defense secretary and i will attend. so yes, needs more attention. doesn't mean that over time or other british troops may be engaged in training quite well, there is a serious possibility of that, but we have to do that working with our allies, coordinating with our allies. and so all that we can announce for the moment is that figure. >> foreign secretary, the public in this country rather think we have taken on more than we can chew in afghanistan. do you think we have been overambitious? do you think our ambition should have been more modest? >> i think our ambition is our right one, provided we understand our ambition is our own national security. and that our objective is to achieve a situation in afghanistan where afghans can conduct their own affairs without presenting a danger to the rest of the world. that does not mean we

necessarily arrive at a situation when every valley in afghanistan is entirely peaceful. where there are no difficulty in the governance of afghanistan, where it has reached a point where it's not 190th on the corruption league, but 10th or 20th. those aren't very, very long-term objectives and so as long as our objective is realistic, then i think it is right to be what we've done since 2001. and this was a response to the event of 9/11, when it began. and then from 2006, never to stabilize the situation in other areas of the country. so provided we have a clear measure of objective, it is not overly. >> do think there are lessons to be learned for future situations where conflicts need to be resolved? what lessons speedy's i'm sure there will be many lessons to be

learned, and some of them will require the wisdom of being able to look back on all of this in the future. to start with the lessons of the highest level, this country needs to put as much resources as possible into conflict prevention around the world. so as we can see how expensive it is, how it costs us dear and human life as well as in financial terms, and in financial terms to engage in long-term substantial conflict. and i'm sure you would have heard what the prime minister has attempted up in more of international development, world conflict prevention. we are working very hard at the moment in the foreign office on the situation in yemen and sudan. that's why i am there, tomorrow i will cheer the u.s. security council on sudan about conflict prevention is what we are concentrate on. so that is one of the first lessons. they won the doubt the other

lessons about how a military intervention should be handled, if it has to take place. there will be lessons from iraq. the chilcot inquiry is looking at at the moment. i'm sure there'll be lessons about how many as well, about the initial deployment, and about many, many decisions taken since then. but it is, i think, really we have to concentrate in the government in finding our way to success in this situation, and that's got to be our prime concern. >> we do have a union in the foreign office that -- this will look at the results of the ira iraqi. >> i want to step back because i think that's one of the lessons that can be drawn from iraq as well. how people speak local languages. the last foreign affairs committee said the ability

engage with afghans in key local language is crucial in afghanistan. we are concerned nearly eight years after intervening in afghanistan they still have no pashtun speakers. what is the situation in 2010? >> this is a vital importance for the foreign office, and it's a wider subjected than the situation in afghanistan. we are a country noted for our language skills among our diplomats, when compared to many other nations of the world. but i was very concerned by the closure of the foreign office language, school. i've been looking in recent weeks at the language arrangements in the foreign office that is quite, back together again and we have all the budgetary constraints on government that we have now. but i'm casting a critical eye over the current arrangements to see how they can be improved. then coming to the level of the

specialism in this area, you're quite right, the committee has highlighted before the small number of speakers of the relevant languages. karen pointed out on this one are depression that we do have some people who speak local languages, and we make a great use of interpreters. can't give any more up-to-date figures than that, but i would point out, with a huge number of our diplomats who need to be deployed to a situation like this, and the inevitable human need to overtake them quite quickly, it's unlikely we will arrive at a situation where a large proportion of those diplomats will become in the local images of afghanistan. i think that is realistic. karen, can you add to that? . .

for the short time expertise so people would return to base and come back. and i certainly saw the great efficiency and more than i saw in the foreign office in some detail. you know, the recreation of course is essential, but they are some of those key people are often for long periods of time, >> and it was very evident in the t afghanistan. >> i do see the point about that, although we do have some incredibly hard-working peoplenl in the foreign office and other government depary tments in afghanistan. and i am always impressed as i hope you are on the visit by thu other dedication of a very, very difficultdi circumstances. certainly i think the committeet

ft right to raise a point abouto the length of the planet.the it's often struck me in the past, looking at princeton's rs in these situations who can go on for a very long breaks backth suntial of service they organize it in a different way. but i am not averse to looking at how we can improve this in the future. >> if i could get back to that, mr. chairman, just on the language speakers. because of the program the foreign secretary's mentioned in his fresh look at this, more people will be trained in afghan languages over the coming years, though it's obviously not something we can put right instantly. but the proportion of speakers in the embassy, we would call it a hard language, it's roughly equivalent to hard language speakers in our other postings. admittedly, afghanistan is more important, but it's certainly not disadvantaged because it's a conflict zone. >> are you able to give us a

breakdown -- >> i can certainly do that, but i'm afraid i don't have it in my head. the additional advantage in using afghan interpreters in an attempt to be assuring to the local communities, the ministry has found it tends to build interest and confidence, so we do rely on our staff quite considerably. on your point of not letting lessons be lost through continuity of posings, absolutely. we are trying to see if we can somehow link postings so that someone would do a rotation in afghanistan, come back to london and work on the issue, and conceivably even share a posting in afghanistan. what they came to realize are not just on young people who have no family attachments, but we do want to try to get more experienced diplomats there. more experienced diplomats tend to have families, so we need to try to get that balanced right as well. >> just a quick order --

>> [inaudible conversations] >> coming back to the 2014-'15 deadline when you say it's without question we will end, we will withdraw combat troops, we went into afghanistan because it was a fail state, and we thought that the terror attacks would come on to our own country if we didn't take action. what will happen in a situation where that happens again? do you rule out or does the coalition rule out putting troops on the ground if situation -- what went as bad as it was previously? >> we're clearly aiming here to create a completely different scene in afghanistan from anything that prevailed in the recent past. i've given figures earlier for the anticipated strength of the afghan national security forces just by 2011, let alone by 2014. i've indicated how they're already beginning to be able to conduct the majority of the operations such as in the operations that karen was talking about earlier. and so our objective is, and

it's an internationally-agreed objective, to create by 2014 a situation where afghan forces can lead and sustain their own operations throughout afghanistan. and it's consistent with that, therefore, for us to say what we've said about 2015 and to believe that if we achieve those objectives with regard to the afghan national security forces, we won't be placed again in the situation of 9/11. >> but the 2014-'15 deadline is set regardless of the situation that you find whether afghan army and police are ready to take over, whether they're able to take over. so it's possible, didn't say it's likely, but it's possible that the situation may deteriorate. at that point would you rule out coalition troops being used again? this. >> this is a clear deadline. no one should be in any doubts about this whatsoever. let everyone's mind concentrate on this.

the afghan government, our allies if necessary, this is absolutely clear what we've said about 2015. the prime minister was here, he would put it in equally trenchant terms. >> how would you stop terrorist attacks coming to the u.k. if we have a failed state again? >> well, i commented about the situation in 2025 or 2035. we're trying to create the conditions here in which we don't have a failed state, in which we have a state with one of the largest armies in the world able to conduct its own affairs. at least to the extent of not being a danger to the rest of the world in be line with the -- many be line with the national security objective, the realistic objective that i set out earlier. i think that is a realist oibtive e -- realistic objective. >> thank you. >> can i just return to the issue of hearts and minds and the situation of civilian

casualties, reports we've gotten many this committee e are casualties are going up, and this, in many ways, makes it easy for the taliban to make us look like an occupying government, etc., etc. history would suggest, you know, those countries, regimes that have militarily engaged with the west in the past, the old system has survived. communism has survived, cuba, north vietnam, north korea, perhaps even china. it fosters a sort of feeling of mistrust which plays into the taliban's hands. is there anything we can do to break into this cycle? >> well, so much of what our military effort is directed at doing working with the provincial reconstruction teams is to break into this circle. as you know, the military strategy adopted at the highest level was redefined to be counterinsurgency involving the protection of the local

population. isaf forces go to great lengths to protect local populations. they often take losses to protect local populations. the majority of civilian casualties are caused by the other side and they are caused by the ieds of the taliban and others. so i think it's very important to remember that, that we are the forces safeguarding the civilian population wherever possible. and i think karen may have the figures here, but i think it is around 70% of the civilian casualties that are caused by taliban acttivities and ieds. >> that's right. 70% of the casualties caused by the taliban, and the figure has gone up this year, but that's largely due toen increase in -- to an increase in the taliban attacks. i think it's helpful to point out that, of course, any casualty that is caused by isaf is accidental.

it is regrettable, and we've said so in the security council. as the foreign secretary said, we take all steps possible to minimize the risk that there will be accidental casualties, that the taliban, by contrast, actually go out and target civilians. >> we spent the last 55 minutes looking at afghanistan. for the last ten minutes before we go into the private session can we have a look at pakistan? mike. >> we've already asked you in the september your reaction to the prime minister's statement in india in which he referred to pakistan looking both ways and alleged that they were exporting terror to india, afghanistan and elsewhere in the world, or certainly it could be interpreted that way by the pakistanis. was he wise to make that remark in india? >> yes. a good foreign secretary will affirm the prime minister's always wise. [laughter] to make remarks.

[laughter] and then i think they were remarks which were wide ri supported and respected around the world, and it was said at the time by some commentators that that had damage relations with pakistan. i have to say in recent months relations between the u.k. and pakistan have been excellent. cooperation between our two goths has been excellent -- governments has been excellent. so if there was disquiet in the pakistani government about that, it has been more than overcome by the work that we have been doing together since then. >> we've had evidence from a number of sources that say that pakistan doesn't fully cooperate with the u.k. on counterterrorism issues. what's your reaction to that? >> well, there is a new demand for cooperation on counterterrorism operations, very much on an operational basis. and, again, i don't think -- i

can't go into the details of that in public, but certainly i would say that the cooperation on counterterrorism with pakistan has substantially improved in recent times. >> would you say, however, that it's not yet as unconditional and full as it might be? >> well, those things can be quite difficult to assess. it's often hard to be sure whether a country's giving all the information and cooperation that it could give. but nevertheless, i do stress, again, that we have, we have no current reason for complaint about that, and the cooperation has improved. >> it was put to us in pakistan that the pakistanis would like some sophisticated equipment so that they're able to do the job themselves much more effectively. do we have concerns that we don't want to give certain equipment to pakistan because we're not quite sure where it

might end up? >> [inaudible] >> yes. >> president zardari was complaining, he was saying he'd like to have access to the drone technologies. >> right. well, of course, the technology from this country is very carefully controlled, and we will look from it from a friendly country and all requests, but i'm sure you understand how carefully we control those things. >> but the point was made to us, look, you're asking us to do a job out here on the northwest frontier, but you're not giving us the technology we need. is there a case of we could be doing more to help them on the military front? >> well, i think we will always be careful in selling advanced technology and to many nations around the world. and, of course, we will have to be careful in this case. >> can i just answer that we are getting by the e.u. export regime and some of the other regimes as the foreign secretary

was saying. president czar da by has been worried about the keg ration of equipment among the pakistani armed forces. some of that relates to very sophisticated technology, some of it is more basic. the ministry of defense got a review on what help they can give to pakistan across the board, a i number of areas not just provision of equipment. >> the pakistani state or some of its agencies were involved in setting up the taliban in afghanistan. they did so at that time with western support. because they were used against the soviet union. how confident are we now that elements within the pakistani state, in particular the isi, are willing and able to tackle those insurgents given their close historical links with them? >> well, i think we have seen a

sharply increased willingness in pakistan to tackle insurgency in many different forms. and you're familiar, of course, with many of the military campaigns that they have undertaken and, indeed, the huge losses on the pakistani military have sustained. and i think it's very important, always, to recognize that. and so pakistan, i think, has a state, the government of pakistan including its intelligence services can now see very clearly after some of the terrible terrorist incidents they have themselves experienced the importance of tackling insur yen si and instability. >> and they've lost lots of people against the pakistani taliban. the question is are they prepared to act against the afghan taliban which might be a kind of proxy for an organization of which they could still have some influence in the future? this. >> well, again i would say that the cooperation between our countries has improved in this

area. but i would stress of course in a political settlement of afghanistan which we have been discussing earlier, the support and the active support of pakistan because of links that were established over a long time will be very important. >> >> is it a case of willingness or capability to take on the afghan taliban? the pakistani military have been pretty heavily involved though not totally successful in north waziristan, and yet we've still got baluchistan which is the main base of the afghan taliban. do you think it's a willingness and lack of capacity or do you think that it's -- [inaudible] >> well, the military capacity to deal decisively with every threat in that kind of terrain is, of course, quite difficult to come by. so i think that always has to be

understood. this is one of the most difficult areas in the world, again, as you know very well know as a former defense secretary. one of the most difficult areas in the world to control by military means. nevertheless, we have seen a greater increased willingness on the part of pakistan to confront insurgencies on their own territories to take action against terrorist groups. so i think i would like to emphasize that rather than be critical today that we have seen very important steps forward in tackling terrorism by the government of pakistan and, of course, we want those to continue. >> -- [inaudible] but they point out to how many people they've lost in action and taken against the insurgency.

they complain about the borders and the lack of border control, and they highlight how many border control people they've got on the border between pakistan and afghanistan, and they highlight the difference between our forces and their own. is there anything we can do to make the border more secure than it is now by putting more emphasis on the need to keep it tighter boundary than we've got at the moment? >> well, there may be over time. and, of course, there have been discussions about this between afghanistan and pakistan. which we very much encourage. again, it is following up a point i made to mr. ainsworth, this is one of the most difficult borders in the world to police. in some cases there would be argument about exactly where it was. but certainly there have been international initiatives to improve cooperation on the borders, and we encourage those. karen, do you want to add to that? >> just to amplify that point, foreign secretary.

the initiative that the canadians started about improving cooperation on the border between afghanistan pakistan, the international monitoring can help, and we're hoping the french will continue that under their g8 presidency, and there is something called the dubai process which also looks at the same issue on a slightly larger basis. so these things will continue, we hope. >> while we were in islam brad, the pack -- islam brad, the pakistanis were pretty clear they wanted to be involved. do you think we can trust them to be in on this broker? [laughter] >> well, i hope that in the region, i hope all nations in the region including pakistan will be able to play a supportive role in a political settlement. in afghanistan. but i think we should be careful about defining who is a broker in bringing about such a settlement. this has to be an afghan-led process of reconciliation.

>> exactly. and do you think the comment on u.s./pakistan relations here. they seem to be at loggerheads. we picked up hostility to the united states despite the fact that a substantial amount of aid is given by the united states to pakistan. we've got a role here, at least i believe we've got a role here. do you agree that we could be encouraging afghanistan -- pakistan and the united states to communicate better with each other so they can then work jointly towards a settlement? >> yes. i think the governments of pakistan and the united states do communicate effectively with each other. it is very important for the united states and the united kingdom to explain to the people of pakistan what we are doing. and i strongly welcome the visits of fellow parliamentarians to pakistan. we have had, as i think was set

out in memorandum sent to the committee, a large number of ministerial visits to pakistan under the new government, and on many of those visits we have gone out of our way to spend our time on the media in pakistan. i think i did an exceptional number of interviews on my visit to pakistan to explain to the people of pakistan about the role of the u.k., about the the extent of the assistance we are giving with education in pakistan. since then, of course, britain is one of the countries that has led the way in responding to the disastrous floods in pakistan, and so i think the u.k. and the u.s. and our allies have to communicate that as effectively as possible. and alongside a close relationship with india, to build a long-term strategic partnership with pakistan. those things go indices pence my together. >> president zardari said he wanted to address this

committee, and we will facilitate th >> restarting the middle east peace talks topic at today's state department briefing. is rarely premise or benjamin netanyahu presented a u.s. plan to his cabinet sunday that would freeze israeli west bank settlement construction for 90 days in exchange for 20 warplanes. later, state department spokesman p.j. crowley talked about the possibility of nuclear talks with iran on december 5. >> secretary clinton had a very productive meeting with foreign minister oz of the lithuania this morning. she thanked is delaney affords contributions in afghanistan, welcomed its efforts to promote energy diversification across europe and discussed opportunities for cooperation during lithuania's upcoming

chairmanship of the osce and its current chair of the community of democracies, so they look forward to seeing each other again at the end of this weekend was fun. this evening secretary clinton will participate in the global initiatives verse baroness awards ceremony at the kennedy center. the global fairness initiative works to end poverty by advancing fair wages, equal access to markets and balanced public policy to generate opportunity and end the cycle of poverty to present the fairness award to the founder of the self-employed women's association india which has helped more than a million women in india gain access to opportunities for themselves and their families. turning to sudan, special envoy scott gration has returned to the united states where he will join secretary clinton in new york tomorrow morning at the u.n. security council ministerial meeting on sudan. there, secretary clinton will

deliver remarks on u.s. support to the parties with only 55 days remaining until the southern sudan referendum. the parties continue to make progress on preparations for that referendum. we are pleased to see the start of voter registration today. this is an important milestone made possible by the hard work of the southern sudan referendum commission, the cpa parties in and the international community. the start of voter registration list the parties closer to meeting their shared goal of conducting a peaceful, on-time referendum that reflects the will of the people of southern sudan. the discussions between the parties on javier and other outstanding issues have recessed briefly for eid and allow northern participants to participate in the hajj. they reach consensus on principles to resolve a number of issues including border demarcation, security arrangements and economic cooperation. we continue to press the parties

to make the tough political decisions that are necessary for peace and look forward to renew dialogue next week. turning to egypt, the united states remains committed to supporting free and impartial elections in egypt. we welcome the government of egypt stated commitment to expand political participation and ensure free and transparent elections, including facilitating domestic monitoring by civil society groups. the candidate registration process for the november 28 people's assembly elections closed last week. in keeping with the egyptian government's commitment, fair and transparent elections would include peaceful political assemblies throughout the campaign, civil society organizations, and really promoting voter education and participation and an open media environment that offers balanced coverage for all candidates. in addition an open electoral process would include a credible

and impartial mechanism for reviewing election related complaints come a domestic election observation effort according to the international standards and the presence of international observers. and finally, before taking your questions, this morning as you know we released our open doors 2010 annual survey report. spud among other things it is noted that the number of international students at colleges and universities in in the united states increased by 3% to just shy of 700,000 students during the 2009/2010 academic year, which represents a record high number of international students in the united states. and this growth was driven mainly by a 30% increase in chinese student enrollment at in the united states, to nearly 128,000 students. they now account for more than 18% of the total international student population. but rounding out the top 10

would include students from india, south korea, canada, taiwan, japan, saudi arabia, mexico, vietnam and turkey. >> p.j. this morning the secretary was asked but she didn't really respond to the point of the question i think. she was asked about whether the administration really believes that three months is enough time to make enough progress on the border issue-- borders to keep the palestinians involved or to keep the peace process alive. i am just wondering why does the administration think that three months is enough time to get enough done on the borders? >> well, and matt, all i will tell you is that we remain intensely engaged with the parties to try to get them back into negotiations. as the secretary said, only through these direct negotiations can the parties reach an ultimate agreement.

it does remain our view that an agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time. as you know, when the process started, we said this could be accomplished within 12 months. hard to say at this point, given the delay over the issue of settlements, where we stand on that clock. but, the first step in the process is to get them back to the bargaining table. once we get them back to the bargaining table, we believe that those sites then have the ability to move forward. i'm not going to predict that this point you know, what that strategy will be specifically, but we can't get to an agreement unless we get the parties back in negotiations. once we get them in negotiations than we think progress can be made. that, again, reinforces to both of them that there is value in staying at the table, staying

engaged, working through the tough issues in reaching an agreement. >> but that still doesn't answer my question of why do you think that three months is enough time to get some kind of progress on borders done that keeps the process alive. >> again, i am just emphasizing that our first appear in the process is to get them back in negotiations. once we get them back into negotiations, we will have a better view of how to get from where we are now to an ultimate agreement. >> well i guess i just find it a little hard to believe that you don't think you are going to get them back into negotiations. i mean, surely you have some plan after negotiations resumed? and that plan would be to get some come according to everybodf progress or some kind of loose agreement on the borders of the palestinian state, which would then keep the parties at the table and then get them onto

perhaps more difficult issues. why do you think that is possible to get that kind of progress in a three-month period? >> what we are trying to do, so secretary said, to get them back into negotiations. we are working in advancing some ideas on both sides to help accomplish that. and then from there, we believe that there are every opportunity to work systematically through the core issues. and it would be our desire that if and when the parties resumes direct negotiations, that they will just, they will continue on until we are able to reach an agreement. >> you said p.j., that it is hard to say where we are on that clock referring to the u.s. believe that it would be possible to resolve all the major issues within 12 months. why is it hard to say where you are on that clock? i mean that clock began in august when you said it. ended and presumably in august

of 2011. >> our point is we get to august 2011 and we need a little more time to get this done, we'll we will take that time. but, what we said at the outset of this process was that we believed that an agreement can be reached. we haven't changed our view. there is sufficient knowledge about the issues at the heart of the process. we fervently believe that these can be worked through, and arrive at a just agreement that meets the security needs of israel and the aspirations for a state for the palestinian people. >> by the end of august 2011? >> well, i am just saying we have, you know, we are not making progress as we stand here. we have got to get the parties

back into the negotiations and back into negotiations. then we can see once again, you know, some forward motion. so, i can't stand here and say we have to reset the clock to september or october of next year. at the start of this process, we felt that an agreement could be reached within 12 months. we still think an agreement can be reached. if we can do it in 12 months, that would still be our goal. if it takes a little while longer because we have experienced this delay, but my point is you can't get to an agreement and less the parties are in negotiations. and then once we get into the negotiation once again, you know, then we would hope that you know, the parties will advance systematically through the core issues to an agreement. we certainly aren't doing--

working through these things with the idea that we are going to face the same challenge weeks or months from now. we want to get them out the table. we want to get them to stay at the table, work through the issues and get to an agreement. that remains our goal. >> but do you think if they get back to negotiations, they should start with the issue of the borders? >> well, borders is a critical issue. it is not the only one. >> yad, but it is the one. >> again i tried to say i'm not going to stand here and outline what our negotiating strategy has. it is up to the parties to work through these issues. we are prepared to help them do that, but the core issues are well-known, security, borders, refugees, jerusalem, water. we are prepared to work through all of those, but in terms of sequencing, our goal is ultimately to make ryegrass on

all of those issues. but, borders is one of them. >> but the palestinians are to criticize this u.s. proposal saying that your reporting is real for merely fulfilling its obligation under international law so why are you confident the palestinians will come to the table considering that even east jerusalem is not on the freeze kind of horizon when it comes to settlements? >> we are trying to do everything we can to create conditions for the negotiations to resume. that was the focus of the secretary's discussions with prime minister netanyahu, and we are and will be in touch with the palestinians as well. what the secretary laid out this morning remains our focus at this point. we have got to get the parties back to negotiations. we have got to get them over the hurdle that we currently confront in terms of

settlements. we are trying to do that, and then once back in negotiations, we believe that it is still possible to reach an agreement months from now. >> can you just answer the substance of nadia's question which is this belief among some palestinians and other arabs that the united states or the obama consideration essentially is rewarding israel with all the described incentives for keeping what you at least would consider to be their commitment under the roadmap to hault all settlement activity, including so-called natural growth. i mean, why shouldn't somebody, why shouldn't they see it that way that they are being rewarded for doing something that they said they would do? >> i wouldn't characterize it that way. at the heart of the israeli concerns for the future is

security, and we understand that through this process, we have to find ways to reassure the israeli people that, at the end of this process, is a more secure israel and a more peaceful region, one where countries in the region except israel's presents and pursue normalize relations with israel. we also are very conscious of the fact that there is at least one country in the region that is committed to wiping israel off the face of the earth. so, to the extent that there are very valid security concerns that israel has both in the context of the peace process in the context of the broader region as an ally and friend of israel, we are working with israel as part of our commitment

to ensure israel's security. but i'm not going to go into specifics. but, on the israeli side of the ledger, security is at the heart of its concerns. and at the end of this process, israel has to have confidence that its security is assured. we understand that and are working with israel to address its needs. at the same time, we are working with the palestinians to address their needs as well, and the secretary's participation last week with prime minister fyyad in contributing and encouraging others to contribute to the building of institutions that give us hope that should an agreement be reached there would be the emergence of a viable

palestinian state living side-by-side with israel, so we are working to address israel's needs as well, so we believe as part of this process both sides have to understand and expect that out of the negotiating process, they are going to get what they think they need in order to-- in order to make this kind of-- make these kinds of difficult choices and actually reach an agreement. >> has david hale briefed the president? >> we are being invaded. >> has ambassador david hale breathed president abbas on the proposal and what the palestinian. >> david is in the region. i'm not aware that he has had any specific readings as of yet. i would anticipate there will be meetings in the coming days. obviously we have staff on the ground that maintains day-to-day

contact with our palestinian friends. >> i have been waiting. >> go ahead. >> thanks. just regarding u.s. assurances of israel's security, the proposal that you guys had made to israel reportedly includes 20 f-35's. and i know you are going to say we are not going to comment on the details. >> i'm not going to comment on the details. >> i want to finish so you understand why i think you should. the agreement is for 20 planes. israel has already committed to buying 20 of these planes from lockheed at a cost of 7 billion. i question his is, says the same 20 planes and if so what kind of incentive is that? i mean they they have already committed to buying. if it's not are you actually spending $7 billion to get them to extend the talks, extend the freeze for 90 days? >> again i am not going to

comment on details. our policy with regard to israel's security is well-known. look, we are committed to maintaining israel's qualitative edge in the region, but beyond that i'm not going to comment. >> that was actually my question as well. [inaudible] >> staying on the plains, is this something that they would have to buy or are you going to give them these? >> again, i'm not going to comment on any specific discussions. i would just size caution that anytime you have reports about specific things, some details may be right in some details may be wrung. >> then let's just ask this-- in this administration afford to give israel another $3 billion worth of what terry equipment? >> again we are committed to

support his real. >> regardless of whether you are committed to preserving their qualitative military edge-- can this administration which is broker for--. >> you are leaping to a conclusion, to conclusions that i'm not prepared to address. >> but israeli officials have told reporters over there this-- are they misleading the report is? >> again i'm not going to get into any details that made not be under discussion between the united states and his real. >> i understand you want to have the parties back in negotiations. but do you think the reported offer actually addresses the concern of the palestinians? do you think the offer that has been reported, the offer to the israeli government that has been reported, do you think it addresses the concern of the palestinians? because as the colleague said,

they have already reacted that a settlement freeze will not concern east jerusalem. so do you think it provides them with a good reason to get back to the table? >> we absolutely believe that the palestinians and they israel he should return to the negotiating table and we are trying to create conditions on both sides that would enable that to occur. >> bed why are you confident? i mean that's my point. >> on the palestinian side, the only way to end the conflict once and for all is through negotiations that addresses all of the core issues and that is what we are trying to accomplish. and we are trying to create the conditions that enable the parties to return to the negotiating table, work through these issues and reach an agreement that ends the conflict and then within the context of a two-state solution, sees the emergence of a viable

palestinian state. >> but p.j. they already said they have another option which is to go to the u.n. security council whether you are going to get a veto or not or can my point is that israel is not included you are not going to ask israel for another freeze. we are talking about only 90 days. what is it for them to persuade them to go and sit and negotiate? >> first of all and your first we have been very consistent in saying that we do do not believe unilateral steps by either side is the proper route to obtain an agreement. the best route is to negotiate. we believe that for the palestinians for example that is where you gain real leverage in terms of getting what you need and in seeing the emergence of a viable palestinian state. you know, this is our fervent view. the negotiating process is the

best route to palestinian statehood and that is the case that we have had and continue to make to the palestinian authority. >> another subject? >> sure. >> india. p.j., as far as a recent trip of the president to india, he got a lot of-- when he was addressing the indian parliament and either support or endorsing the u.n. security council seat for india, but u.s. was blasted by china and pakistan. and where do we go from here now, as far as his trip to india is concerned? so many issues were discussed and also we will now have a new congress here in washington. >> okay, going all you have lost me. where do we go from here? there is a reform process underway and we will continue to work within the reform process at the u.n. on security council

reform. our focus is making the security council effective and efficient, and we have stated publicly we believe that, as we go forward with reform, it is hard to imagine a viable security council in the future without the participation of india. >> when was the first time you've-- have you informed india in advance or china or any of the five members of the u.n. security council that the u.s. is going to-- the president is going to announce the seat for india while he is in india? >> we have had-- we did inform certain countries before the president made his announcement. >> on the issue of security council reform, is that it? you will support japan and india but you won't support anyone else like rossillo, germany and others? >> well, as we said, in envisioning a larger and more

effective security council there are a number of model countries that could make significant contributions within the security council. japan this one, germany is one. there may be a larger list than that. >> are you willing to support other countries? >> i don't think it this point we have a particular number in mind. >> these are all statements. are you planning to do anything because in new york, they said the u.s. is sluggish. >> let me get this straight. there are various times where we are accused of dictating to the world, and so but in this particular case there is a collaborative process. there are five current members of the security council. eventually consensus will have to be reached among the five. we get a vote, and they have indicated publicly a country or

countries that we believe should be strong candidates for security council representation. beyond that, we will work affirmatively and aggressively within the u.n. on this, but we recognize that this is a process that is going to take some time. the united states cannot snap its fingers and dictate security council reform. >> so it is not an empty promise? >> again, you have herman vermin and security council representatives and we have committed a vote to india as part of this process. >> there is another question. in view of these latest developments in burma, are you planning to lift the restrictions? any changes in the foreign-policy? >> well, we have a strategy with respect to burma. it involves engagement and we will continue to engage burma.

but it also involves sanctions. and, you know, there are things that we want to see in burma. we want to see the emergence of a genuine civil society. we want to see the emergence of a broader political process. you could see over the weekend and the public response to the release of sukie, the burmese people yearn for a different kind of society, an opportunity to participate in the future of their country. it will be important for the burmese leadership to recognize that desire and to find ways to support the people of irma. so, we will be watching carefully to see how the government of burma responds to

son su chi's release. there have been times in the past where she has been released for period of time only to have restrictions imposed upon her again. we don't want to see that happen. she has supposedly-- publicly that there are no restrictions placed on her. our charge in burma has had a meeting with her already, along with the diplomatic corps, the secretary of state has sent a message to her. and we will be engaging her going forward to learn more about how she plans to rebuild the nlp. >> who do you think was his mental and getting this? >> i'm sorry? >> who do you think was instrumental in getting her released? >> wellthe steadfast international attention and pressure over time convinced the leadership in burma bad it had no choice but to release her when her sentence had expired.

>> can you not rule out removing any of the existing u.s. sanctions on burma solely as a result of her released? you guys for years have been very consistent in saying that she and all other hermes political prisoners should be released. the president's statement issued over the weekend said now is the time for all political prisoners to be released, not just one. is it really hard for you or are you actually considering easing some of the sanctions just based on her released? >> we will be watching to see what happens in burma. she has been released and the emotion that has been released as well is very gratifying. we will be watching to see how the government reacts to this. we have had a number of meetings this year with burmese officials. i would expect that we will have

more meetings in the coming weeks with burmese officials. there is a new government in place. unfortunately that government did not come to power through a legitimate political process, but nonetheless we do plan to engage burma and see what it plans to do with other political prisoners, what it plans to do in terms of engaging ethnic groups within it gets society and we will respond accordingly. we are prepared to have a different kind of relationship with burma that there are things that irma will have to do. as we said last week, it will take more than one action to change our policy. >> one other thing you said that you do plan to continue to engage the burmese leadership and that you expected a meeting within a couple of weeks. >> i didn't say that. i said we'll have meetings in the coming weeks. >> incoming links. so here's the question. at what level? i mean i believe its it's

assistant secretary campbell who has under this administration been the primary interlocutor in the meetings originally a the united states. is it going to be at his level or is it going to be at the charge during this doing it there? >> to have effective conversation you have to have engagement from both sides of the equation. we have had meetings with burma. we are interested in having more meetings. now that they have gone through this electoral process, we will see what the government of irma wants to do. >> this may be the first time since she had won an election in 1990 or had democratic party to see the sunlight in a free burmese society. now she was released after the elections, only not before the elections because they were afraid that she would win again on her democratic party. now, as far as her commitment to engage with the generals and to

be part of the process in burma, what role do you think u.s. is planning to bring her back or her party to be the diagram of-- democratic government in burma? >> this is for son su chi and others to determine what kind of relationship they want with the government, what kind of civil society they would like to see emerge. we are supportive of a robust civil society. we are supportive of an open political process. unfortunately the election that just as in burma was by no means an open political process, so we would like to see fundamental change happen in burma. we think that gestures that she has made to the government to have dialogue is very constructive and we hope the government response to that. >> are you ready to declare election is a sham or is not under the international.

>> we have already said that. >> has there have been any developments in terms of iran except thing this december 5 date for new talks and has there have been any progress in finding a venue? >> i am not aware of a response to date to the e.u. letter to the iranians last week. >> do you have any comment on the report north korea is building light water nuclear there? >> well, north korea has obligations. it has stated in the 2005 joint statement that it is committed to denuclearization of the korean peninsula. we expect north korea to live up to its international obligations

as it does, we are prepared to have cumbre stations with north korea about its long-term requirements. but first and foremost north korea has to live up to its stated commitments. hold on. >> i have a quick question about the secretary's foreign travel this week. just wanted to know if there's any more details on her agenda? >> actually i think at 11:00 tomorrow morning we will be having it rethink with assistant secretary phil gordon to work through her travel and in particular to help tee up the lisbon summit. >> a question on haiti. we are getting reports that cholera continues to spread to the country. are there any plans right now of sending additional american supplies or personnel? >> well, on the one hand as we anticipated, you are seeing an increase in the number of

cholera cases. by the same token, even though tragically the death toll is rising as a percentage of the mortality rate, as a percentage of the number of cases identified continues to go down. it is still higher than we would like, but we think through the work that we are doing with the international community, including the pan american health organization, procuring and distributing medical and sanitation supplies, increasing the number of cholera treatment centers across the country, and the public health campaign that is going on in haiti and includes active participation by haitian leaders including president preval, this is the way to best manage the colorado break in haiti. it is a very treatable disease,

but we will be working aggressively with haiti because once cholera has emerged, we understand that the disease will be in the country for a number of years and we will have to continue to take a number of steps over a sustained period of time to contain and ultimately eliminated the out right. >> in view of the two investigative reports over the weekend, which were co-published by a washington newspaper, have you increased or asked pakistan to bring to book the perpetrators of 26/11 mumbai 2008 at tax? >> we have repeatedly called upon pakistan to prosecute those responsible for the attacks and we continue to expect pakistan to take the appropriate steps. that is something that we do raise with pakistan on a regular basis.

>> when did you last reach out to them? >> we have conversations with pakistan all the time. >> ahead of the summit of the european union, are you worried that renewed turmoil surrounding the euro zone could spread united states-- like back in in the spring? >> i don't know the background of the question. >> at the moment in the euro zone, borrowing rates for countries like ireland, spain and so on are shooting up. back in the spring a lot of senior u.s. administration officials were worried about this, contagion could spread. ahead of the summit this week and i just wondered whether you would like to make a comment about that. >> i will usually differ macroeconomic issues to the department of the treasury. obviously there was the g20 and this was a very significant topic of discussion with the president and other world leaders. >> p.j. on friday both the congressman burman and congresswoman lowey released their holds on the military aid

to lebanon. has that money actually shown up there? has come and gone over with a check or is it something that takes a little while longer to work its way through the process? >> we are very pleased that mr. burman and slowly have lifted their holds on our assistance and will be now working aggressively with the government of lebanon to obligate our programs with that country. >> so that means you don't know if it's actually gotten their or not? >> i think now that the holds have been lifted we have the ability now to move forward and we will do so very rapidly. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> now senate minority leader mitch mcconnell announces that he intends to vote for a moratorium on earmarks. this is nine minutes.ctions in >> mr. president, i've seen a lot of elections in my life, bue i've never seen an election like the one we had earlier thi es

month. the 2010 midterm election was as change election, the likes of which i have never change that people want above all is right here in washingtony most americans are deeply unhappy with theirwi governmentn more so than at any other time ind decades.kers have and after the way lawmakers have done business up here over the , last couple of years, it is easy to see why. but it is not enough to point out the faults of the party inw. power. americans want change, not meref criticism. and that means that all of us is washington need to get serious y about changing the way we doss,n business even on the things we have defended in the past, good perhaps for good reason. if the voters express themselveu clearly and unenequivocally on n issue, it is not enough to persist in doing the opposite oe grounds that is the way we have

always done it. eleions are that is what elections are about, after all. and if this election has shownhe us anything it is that americans know the difference between talking about change and actually delivering on it. chae bringing about real change is hard work. ether t it rehequires elected officials, whether they are in their first week or their 50th year, to ande challenge others and above allto to challenge themselves to do things differently from time to time. shake up the status quo in pursuit of a goal or a vision hr that the voters have said for the good of our country. i have thought about theselong d things long an hd hard over the past few weeks.i've i have talked with my membersiso and i have listened to them.iste above all i've listened to my concluded i constituents and what i've concluded is that on the issue a of congressional earmarks as thy leader of my party in the have o senate, i have to leave first by example.

ha been in nearly every day that the senate has been in session for the past two years i have come down to t mo democrats were ignoring the wishes of the american people. when it comes to earmarks, i the won't be guilty of the same thing. mista, make no mistake, i know the gooe that has come from the project that i've i have helped support throughout my state. apolo i don't apologize for them thatt there are simply no doubt that s the abuse of this practice has caused americans to view it as a symbol of the wasted spendingmid that every republican in washington is determined to fight. show th unless people like me shall bolh and people they are willing to e follow through on their small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on the broader efforts to cut spending and reign in government.ay i am that is why today i'm announcing that i will join the republican tpor leadership in the house inatorin support of a moratorium on earmarks in the 112 congress. over the years i've seen

to acquire total discretion oved appropriations. and i've seen presidents of both parties ways more taxpayer dollars on various projects commissions and programs on tha every congressional earmark put together. look no further than the passed stimulus, which congress passed without any earmarks only to load i have a carter to administrations loaded up with earmarks for everything from turtle tone mulls two tennis courts. vital contrast this was truly vital home projects i have supported back e home in kentucky such as the work we have done in relation to the paducah diffusion plant inrn western katechi. which there was a facility in whichthn workers for years run were unaware of the dangers that the uranium at the plant post to their t u health or how to safey use dispose of the hazardous materials that were used there.e thanks to an exposé about the plant of in the '90s by the madefo known and i said about enforcing the government to put a cleanup ptrlan in place and to treat the people who had worked

rough th there.ess, we through the earmark process we administrations of both parties to do what was needed to clean up the site and to screen the people who had worked there for cancer.creening these screening saves lives andd they would not have happened iff congress had not directed the funds to pay for it. the another success story is the grass army depot which houseshoe some of the deadliest materials decided we would not use the kis kinds of weapons that were govern at the site and yet the federal government was slow to o follow through on safelyw sy dismantling and removing them.id even after we had signed an international treaty that treat required it. the thanks to congressional appropriations we are on the way to destroying the chemicaland, weapons of the site safely and thus protect the community that administrations of both parties that fail to see the full merit in either of these projects,

which is one of the reasons whye i have been reluctant to this to concede responsibility for continuing the good wo ork thatr being done on them and on others to the executive ranch.d abo so i am not wild about turning over more spending authority to the executive ranch but i have w come to share the view of most t americans that our nation is at aa crossroads, that we will not be able to secure the kind of fe future that we want for our children and grandchildren unless we act and act quickly. l and if the only way we will be able to turn the corner and save our future is if elected leadera like me make the kinds ofecisios difficult decisions voters are clearly asking us to make.washie republicans in and out of nuousl washington have argued strenuously for twors years at spending and debt are a crisisle levels and we have demonstrated our seriousness about cutting veending and reining inr examp,e government. or example every republican on the senate appropriations

committee voted against every appropriations bill in committee this c year because they simply. cost too much. projects in our home states.oted we voted against them anyway. ah banning earmarks is another small but important symbolic step that we can take to show that we are serious, another step on the way to serious and sustained cuts and spending and to debt.t otrlier this month voters acrosv the country said they are counting on republicans to make liugh decisions. repub them that they were right toem i their trust in us. it is my fervent hope that it will help demonstrate to theeope american people in some way juss how serious republicans are about not letting them down.thee republican leaders in the house and senate are now united on this issue, united in hearing what the voters have been telling us for two years andacti acting on it.small t this is no small thing.ol

old habits aren't easy to break that sometimes they must be. and now is such a time. $14 trin with a 14 trillion-dollar debt o and autdministration of talks so sends overbudget the triples the national debt in 10 years andsi, creates a massive new entitlement program, it is time for some of us in washington tot show that every way possible we mean what we say about spendingn with republican leaders in congress united the attention now turns to the president.ave i we have said we we are willing to to give up discussion. how h now we will see how he handles c spending decisions. the president ends up with total discretion overotal spending, we will see even moree clearly where his prioritiesaw e lie. we are already saw they have administrations priorities in hae stimulus bill that has becomet' synonymous with wastede wasteful spending that borrowed nearly a trillion dollars for a demonstrated earmarks like turtle tone mulls, a sidewalk

that led to a ditch and research on voter perceptions of the bill.f congressional republicans uncovered most of this waste through congressional oversight, we will continue to monitor how the money taxpayers sent to the administration is actually spent. it is now up to the president and his party in congress toir n show their own seriousness on thisne issue, to say whether thy will join republican leaders in this effort and then after that and significantly reducing the size and cost and reach of .. they can that this is what they want us to